Report comment

Whilst it seems clear that the court's decision in relation to Tina Malone is a reasonable response to her actions, there is a genuine problem here in relation to the operation of an injunction of this kind in practice. Such an injunction is entirely useless except to the extent that any person who might be in a position to breach it is made aware of it.

According to the article, the terms of this injunction were such as to "prevent the publication of any images or information purporting to identify [named individuals] whether this is online or in print". It is not difficult for the court to arrange for the print media to be informed of the injunction and the press will then know that they cannot publish any information in breach of it (at least without applying to the court for the injunction to be lifted). But how on earth are the millions of users of social media expected to find out about the existence of an injunction that proscribes what they are about to do (especially as many no longer read the print media that might have reported the existence of the injunction)? And if they don't know about it, then the injunction is as ineffective in relation to them as if it had simply been stuck on the court file after being made.

The irony in this case is that it has taken a breach of the injunction by a celebrity (whose activities will therefore be the subject of a lot of social media postings) before many social media users will have got to know about the injunction in the first place.