Neither of the footballers can be named under the terms of the orders. The latest decision means the injunction granted on August 19 continues until trial of the action or further order. The case - listed in the anonymised form of ZXC v BNM - was heard in private, but lawyers confirmed afterwards that the order had been continued by the judge. Before the proceedings went into private session, Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the footballer, told the judge that an injunction was granted on August 19 "to prevent the misuse of private information".
He stressed that it was not a super-injunction. Mr Tomlinson added: "It is an injunction which does not seek to conceal its own identity, but seeks to conceal the identity of the claimant and the defendant because it is an injunction which relates to private information. Juarez boss banned for anti-gay comments. Sala plane organiser given month jail term. Brazil beat Colombia to qualify for World Cup. Battle of the Leagues final: Premier League or Ligue 1 to win it all?
En-Nesryi to Man City? January moves that could fix what's wrong at Europe's biggest clubs. After Germany score nine, check the biggest-ever WC qualifying wins. The race for World Cup places: what every country needs in Europe. An injunction blocking publication of allegations about his private life was originally granted to the sportsman on 19 August.
The move came shortly after another England international player was granted a similar court order. The terms of the orders prohibit either of the footballers from being named.
The initial injunction was granted by a different judge. Delivering today's page ruling, Lord Mance said: "There is no public interest however much it may be of interest to some members of the public in publishing kiss-and-tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well-known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them.
The "facts" of the case were outlined in the Court of Appeal ruling last month: Lord Justice Jackson said PJS had met someone, referred to only as AB, around eight years ago, although there was a dispute about whether they had met through a mutual friend or on Facebook. PJS and AB had "occasional sexual encounters" starting in , according to the ruling. In a text message exchange on 15 December , the claimant asked if CD was 'up for a three-way'. AB said that CD was. Accordingly, the three met for a three-way sexual encounter which they duly carried out," it said.
After the newspaper's lawyers contacted PJS's representatives in January to inform them that it planned to publish the story, PJS launched legal action as he said the story would be an invasion of his privacy. The Supreme Court is due to deliver its ruling on whether publications in England and Wales can name a celebrity who had an extra-marital threesome.
The outcome will therefore have "far-reaching consequences for all future privacy cases", adds the newspaper. The Court of Appeal overturned the injunction last month, but PJS took the case to the Supreme Court, which has been considering its response for the past four weeks.
Lawyers for the celebrity couple say that identifying them in the English press would be devastating for their children. However, the Sun on Sunday has argued that the information is in the public interest and that the injunction is essentially pointless because they have been so widely named. The US magazine that revealed the identity of "PJS", the entertainer involved in an extra-marital threesome, has vowed to continue exposing British celebrities who seek privacy injunctions to gag the press.
Neither the magazine nor its editor can be named in England and Wales in connection with the two stories. Both PJS and the actor have been widely named on social media. The editor said his publication had "never shied away from publishing or tackling very serious issues and we will continue to pursue stories in Britain".
He added: "We believe our readers have the right to know about the professional and personal lives of these types of celebrities and we are not going to shy away from that. Asked if he was planning to name any other people with a privacy injunction, he replied: "Watch this space.
The Sun is currently waiting to hear if it can print the name of PJS, as the Supreme Court continues to deliberate the case.
0コメント