Protecting Privacy In The Age Of Revenge Porn: A Landmark Injunction Case

Case background

In this case, the Claimant issued proceedings against the Defendant seeking damages and an injunction in relation to the Defendant’s misuse of his confidential private information and her threat to do so again in the future.

The Defendant had repeatedly threatened to disclose naked photographs of the Claimant to his children, work colleagues, and to the world via social media unless he paid her large sums of money. She also made various allegations against him, including claims that she was married to the Claimant and that he had an STD.

The Claimant made an ex parte interim injunction application to prohibit the Defendant from disclosing the images. The application was heard by Mr Justice Ritchie on 13 March 2025, and an interim injunction was granted on the following terms with a return date set for 3 April 2025:

There were also several carveouts to the above, such as permitting the Defendant to communicate with legal and medical advisers and law enforcement agencies.

The next hearing to determine whether the injunction should remain in place for the life of the proceedings was listed before Aidan Eardley KC, who was tasked with deciding whether the injunction should remain in place or whether it should be discharged. When deciding this, the Judge considered what conclusion the trial judge would be likely to come to.

The Judge confirmed that he had no doubt that the Claimant would be able to establish at trial that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of all three classes of information that the injunction protects. He therefore went on to balance the Claimant’s right to a private life (under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act) and the Defendant’s right to freedom of expression (under Article 10).

The Judge did acknowledge that the Defendant uses social media to write about her own life and experiences and to raise awareness of women’s issues, and therefore, granting an injunction would limit her ability to do so. The Judge, however, ultimately felt it possible for the Defendant to still share her experiences, but in a way that would protect the Claimant’s privacy. In such circumstances, there would be limited interference with the Defendant’s own Article 8 and 10 rights, and accordingly, it would be proportionate for the injunction to continue.

Comment

The above is a useful indication of how the Court will approach the granting of an injunction in relation to the misuse of a person’s private information. This decision is particularly important given the increase in image-based abuse cases (more commonly known as “revenge porn”).