Which court decided it?

Supreme Court in 2016. Neutral citation: [2016] UKSC 26.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Foreign publication and online availability do not automatically defeat UK privacy protection. Continuing intrusion (photographs, tabloid front pages) is a distinct harm from the initial disclosure. Children's Article 8 interests can independently support an injunction.

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd

[2016] UKSC 26 — Supreme Court, 2016

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

The Supreme Court granted an anonymised injunction restraining The Sun on Sunday from publishing details of a celebrity's extramarital sexual encounters, despite the story already appearing overseas and online. Confirmed that widespread online availability does not automatically defeat a domestic privacy injunction.

Key rulings

Foreign publication and online availability do not automatically defeat UK privacy protection.
Continuing intrusion (photographs, tabloid front pages) is a distinct harm from the initial disclosure.
Children's Article 8 interests can independently support an injunction.

Topics

PrivacyInjunctionsChildren

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Applied the Campbell Article 8 / Article 10 balancing test.
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
Both concern privacy injunctions over sexual matters.

Acts cited

Human Rights Act 1998

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/26.html

Cite this page

Format

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 (Supreme Court) &lt;https://www.ukjournohub.com/law/landmark-cases/pjs-news-group&gt; accessed 14 July 2026.

Please cite when quoting or paraphrasing on UK JournoHub — see /ai.txt for policy.

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch)Read →Landmark caseMurray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446Read →Landmark caseCampbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22Read →Landmark caseDouglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.