is this the end of kiss and tell..judge grants injunction to protect adultewrer's idnetity

[zippitippitoes]

.......husband's desire for revenge blocked

Lawyers said that the ruling could spell the end of ?kiss and tell? disclosures in the media. The public figure, CC, had sought the injunction after AB discovered the affair.

After the private hearing, the judge gave his decision in open court. He said that the claimant had ?conducted an adulterous relationship for some months with the defendant?s wife and now seeks the court?s assistance in preventing him from telling anybody about it?.

The couple had carried on their affair in hotels in England and abroad. ?They were not recognised although it could be said they took the chance of being spotted,? the judge added.

The judge, who could find no legal precedent from the 19th or 20th centuries, said that he was faced with ?the striking proposition that a spouse whose partner has committed adultery owes a duty of confidence to the third party adulterer to keep quiet about it?. >>>>>>>>

Hopefully this will put a few tabloids out of business (although I doubt it...)

Hmmm...wouldn't be surprised if this was overturned later. This is only a temporary injunction. While I do see the point of protecting the adulterer's family, it has quite serious implications for freedom of speech etc
The papers are clearly being very restrained so you can't blame them here.

I can't imagine this being upheld tbh. It's absurd.

I wonder what other stories it might apply to..

all manner of things might affect your family etc etc

Any guesses as to who it is?

This happened before to a footballer - can't remember his name but played for Blackburn. Thye do forget teh power of teh internet in these case though.

what has changed to make ti possible to do this now and not for gary lineker and such like?

European convention on human rights being incorporated into English law. But temporary injunctions are always being given in these sort of cases. Very few remain after being challenged.

I think this is more to protect the fragile emotional state of the wronged wife than the celeb adulterer.

I hope it does stick as then newspapers will have to find something more interesting to print

This is odd, I know they are beginning to incorporate the human rights act, but in that act it also mentions the importance of freedom of speech, so it is just the judge's interpretation of what is most important...

Try as I might, I can't see how it is the public interest to know which soap star/footballer/person on Big Brother is having a bit on the side.

I also think that the ability to wreak revenge by publishing such details is in no one's interest..

a parent at ds school did this..hsi 14 or 15 year old dd had sex with a 15 or 16 year old at the school and the dad took the story to the paper locally to spite the school..not thinking it might upset the girl presumably

I think a lot of it is because the married man who ahd th affair with the woman has gone back to his wife to try adn sort his marriage out, his wife is suicidal, and catatonic with stress and anxiety.

Poor thing

Yes, but I think it is an important principle that we can say anything in public provided it is the truth and we haven't signed a contract promising not to do so, or the Official Secrets Act.
I think the idea that the 'victim' of a bad act should be gagged is just wrong no matter how much I sympathise with the wife.
The whole thing about the papers is a total red-herring. The papers know about the story and haven't printed it because of the wife's fragile state. This injunction is to try and prevent the wronged husband from publishing on the internet, as far as I can see.

it is saving the husband from doing something he would regret too..

nobody is really interested in these celebrity cock ups so best keep them private when it's about a relationship rather than a crime

I don't think the law should exist to prevent us saying things we may or may not regret.

Actually, I think that sort of paternalism in the law would be very dangerous.

Actually have to admit to being nosey on this one, but mainly because I'm very cynical and I expect that this is really about some non-entity.

Agreed Dara

I agree with Dara. I really don't see why the law should protect you from people gossiping about your actions. Or why the law should forbid someone you've hurt, to talk about how you hurt them.