He takes a look at the balancing exercise between competing rights of the parties involved in the recent JIH v News Group privacy injunction case – also concerning XX, YY and ZZ. He lays out four fundamental questions for consideration, which address definitions of public interest and privacy; the economic interests of newspapers; and Parliamentary intervention.
While Dadak suggests no answers to these, I liked his alphabet spaghetti analogy. I thought his concern about claimant anonymisation issues worth sharing:
“We can only hope that the debate ends before the alphabet is exhausted and the Court is forced to use hieroglyphics.”
It could get very confusing.