made the injunction “against the world” rather than just against national newspapers and broadcasters.Well contra mundum sounds to me unenforceable and, it would appear, a number of people know the names of the celebs in question and are prepared to publish those names in the comments to Stephen Glover's piece. Mr Glover himself is not prepared to find out what happens if you go against a ruling he considers to be unjust. A dissident he is not.
His order seeks to prevent the publication of “intimate photographs” of a married public figure after a woman tried to sell them for a “large sum of money”.
The judge said the woman “owed” the claimant, identified only as OPQ, a “duty of confidence” and breaching his privacy would damage the health of the man and his family.
His order is intended to cover discussion of the case online as well as in traditional media, despite the difficulties in enforcing it.
The injunction contra mundum is intended to be never-ending and, as its Latin name suggests, applies to the entire world.
As it happens, I have heard Mr Justice Eady's name before a few times, particularly in connection with the libel tourism case of Rachel Ehrenfeld.
Libel tourism is a serious problem that this government, just like the last one did, is promising to deal with and, indeed, legislation is going through Parliament. The information in Dr Ehrenfeld's book (yes, yes, she is a friend) is of huge importance as it deals with terror financing.
The private lives of TV celebs, be they never that household (actually, I have not heard of them) is of no public interest. The idea that Britain is close to a police state because journalists are being prevented from publishing salacious details about people's private lives is stuff and nonsense.