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

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

Related landmark cases

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 →Landmark caseMosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)Read →

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.