Along with the tabloid editors and a significant proportion of the legal profession, I waited with bated breath on Thursday morning to learn the decision of the Supreme Court concerning the much discussed PJS injunction.  As I watched, I couldn’t help but wonder if, whatever the outcome may be, this was to be the end of the privacy injunction as we’ve known it.  And if so, what would this mean for the regional press?

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last five months you will no doubt be familiar with the case of PJS v NGN Ltd.  PJS is a well-known individual in the entertainment business and is married to YMA.  As is now well rehearsed, PJS engaged in a sexual relationship with AB and CD who subsequently approached the editor of the Sun on Sunday with the intention of selling the story.

Once lawyers acting for PJS were made aware of the plans to publish they made an immediate application with the High Court for an immediate interim injunction to be put in place pending the outcome of a later trial for a permanent restriction on reporting the matter.  This initial application was denied and after exhausting the appeals process in the Court of Appeal the case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court in April where a final decision on the interim injunction was to be made.

The Court handed down its decision late last week, and in a majority ruling (4 – 1), decided to restore the interim injunction preventing the identification of PJS, YMA, AB and CD pending the conclusion of a trial.

In giving his decision, Lord Mance set out six key factors which he said meant that the interim injunction should be restored. Amongst them was the fact that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to conclude that there was public interest in the disclosure of private sexual encounter, albeit limited.  In addition it was held that the public interest provision of the Editors’ Code concerning the rights of children was a factor to be considered from both a legal and regulatory perspective.

Based on the evidence, The Supreme Court decided that PJS was likely to obtain a permanent injunction at trial and therefore the interim injunction should remain in place pending those proceedings.

Only Lord Toulson disagreed, making reference to a statement made by Lord Jackson in the earlier Court of Appeal proceedings where he said “it is in my view inappropriate (some may use a stronger term) to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge”.

Some commentators have leapt into action heralding this as the second coming of the privacy injunction and predicting a vast increase in the number of applications for injunctive proceedings.  In reality I can’t imagine that this will be the case, and whilst it’s possible that we may see an initial flurry of privacy based complaints, I doubt that this will have a great effect on how the regional press operates on a day to day basis.

However, the emphasis placed on the role of the Editors’ Code in a legal context when considering issues of privacy and public interest, and the very clear distinction that was drawn between matters in the public interest, and those which are simply interesting to the public, are both key points to be taken from the judgment.

Whatever your thoughts on the PJS saga, one thing is for certain; this case has sparked a huge debate on the validity of injunctive relief in the modern digital age.