There has been a lot of talk in the press recently about super-injunctions – although not any talk about any in particular but super-injunctions in general. Super-injunctions are often granted to celebrities, politicians or others in the public eye and are slightly different to normal injunctions obviously. Often injunctions are granted to stop someone’s name getting into the press over allegations that have been made and not proved – perhaps they have not yet gone to court.
So what is a super-injunction and how does it differ from a normal injunction? Well it appears that super-injunctions are rare (exact stats are not known due to the nature of a super-injunction) and they grant not only an injunction against the press to saying anything about an allegation e.g. there are allegations that X had an affair with Y, but they also grant an injunction which means that the press cannot even say that there is an injunction in place.
It seems that super-injunctions are often only granted for short periods of time and the fact that the press are not allowed to report on the injunction does mean that we don’t really hear about them.
There has been some conflicting talk about the fact that some of the information that is supposed to be under an injunction can be read about on twitter and right now there is one court case where a premiership footballer is suing Twitter to reveal the identities of twitter users who have broken an injunction. So, be careful what you write on twitter, as it is may not be immune from injunctions and you could end up in trouble…