51:
The case is unusual in that not only are the claimants granted anonymity but also defendants and non-parties. The first claimant "CDE" is described as someone who often appears on television. The second claimant "FGH" is the wife of the first claimant. The second defendant "LMN" is described as a
147:
76:
263:
282:
133:
173:
292:
140:
313:
234:
206:
178:
104:
90:
41:
168:
318:
241:
183:
227:
189:
48:
sought an interim injunction preventing the two defendants from publishing private information about them.
287:
248:
277:
53:
57:
77:"Scottish court awards 17000 damages for distress caused by neighbours CCTV surveillance"
120:
213:
307:
125:
220:
45:
129:
40:
EWHC 3308 is an
English privacy law case. The case was a
56:
who wished to sell a story relating to the claimants to
270:
258:
198:
161:
25:
20:
264:List of privacy injunction cases in English law
37:CDE & FGH v Mirror Group Newspapers and LMN
21:CDE & FGH v Mirror Group Newspapers and LMN
141:
8:
283:2011 British privacy injunctions controversy
148:
134:
126:
17:
68:
7:
156:Privacy injunctions in English law
14:
235:RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd
207:CTB v. News Group Newspapers Ltd.
1:
42:misuse of private information
335:
242:Andrew Marr and anonymous
314:English privacy case law
184:Contra mundum injunction
228:Terry v Persons Unknown
190:Interdicts in Scots law
288:Privacy in English law
259:Anonymised injunctions
199:Super-injunction cases
174:Anonymised injunctions
249:NMC v Persons Unknown
293:Breach of confidence
278:Neuberger Committee
54:disability benefits
44:claim in which two
105:"Data and privacy"
91:"Data and privacy"
301:
300:
179:Super-injunctions
58:The Sunday Mirror
52:single mother on
33:
32:
326:
319:2010 in case law
150:
143:
136:
127:
109:
108:
101:
95:
94:
87:
81:
80:
73:
18:
334:
333:
329:
328:
327:
325:
324:
323:
304:
303:
302:
297:
266:
254:
194:
157:
154:
117:
112:
103:
102:
98:
89:
88:
84:
75:
74:
70:
66:
12:
11:
5:
332:
330:
322:
321:
316:
306:
305:
299:
298:
296:
295:
290:
285:
280:
274:
272:
268:
267:
262:
260:
256:
255:
253:
252:
245:
238:
231:
224:
217:
214:Ntuli v Donald
210:
202:
200:
196:
195:
193:
192:
186:
181:
176:
171:
165:
163:
159:
158:
155:
153:
152:
145:
138:
130:
124:
123:
116:
115:External links
113:
111:
110:
96:
82:
67:
65:
62:
31:
30:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
331:
320:
317:
315:
312:
311:
309:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
251:
250:
246:
244:
243:
239:
237:
236:
232:
230:
229:
225:
223:
222:
218:
216:
215:
211:
209:
208:
204:
203:
201:
197:
191:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
166:
164:
160:
151:
146:
144:
139:
137:
132:
131:
128:
122:
119:
118:
114:
106:
100:
97:
92:
86:
83:
78:
72:
69:
63:
61:
59:
55:
49:
47:
43:
39:
38:
28:
24:
19:
16:
247:
240:
233:
226:
219:
212:
205:
99:
85:
71:
50:
36:
35:
34:
15:
169:Injunctions
162:Terminology
60:newspaper.
308:Categories
64:References
221:DFT v TFD
188:See also
46:claimants
29:EWHC 3308
271:See also
26:Citation
121:Bailii
310::
149:e
142:t
135:v
107:.
93:.
79:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.