|Lord Neuberger MR|
be able get to know though he might not be allowed to discuss it in Parliament because of the sub judice rule.” “What the hell is that – seems a sort of Catch 22”, splutters Joe. “It’s a rule, made by Parliament itself, to prevent interference by Parliament with actual cases before the courts” “Of course”, continues Silkysmooth, “if Parliament really wanted to discuss the matter there’s nothing the courts could do to stop them. Nice to have met you but got to dash now! I’m before Openjustice J in 20 minutes – applying for a superinjunction ....”
|Silkysmooth - Barrister at Law|
Ntuli vDonald  EWCA Civ 1276
CTB v News Group Newspapers and Imogen Thomas  EWHC 1232 (QB)- this is the case at the centre of this row. Note that one of the court's concerns was to protect the applicant against a possibility of blackmail - see para. 22 of Eady J's judgment.
Monday 23rd May - The Guardian - Twitter row prompts call for superinjunctions debate in Parliament
Earlier post - Injunctions and Privacy
Related topics - Court of Protection .... Commenting on Family cases
Charon QC - "Postcard from the Staterooms ******* edition"
Addendum 23rd May: The Attorney-General announced in the House of Commons that a Joint Committee of Both Houses is to be set up to consider whether changes are needed to the law of privacy injunctions. BBC News 23rd May.