Schillings advises 'CTB' in injunction case against Twitter

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • How about doing some research?

    Hundreds, if not thousands, of Twitter account holders published CTB's identity usuing their own names long before the 8 May.

    The LCJ's distinction between super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions is utterly fatuous.

    Schillings do not seem to have allowed for the possibilty of persons unknown turning up at the High Court and identifying themselves, as happens in adverse posession cases. McLibel was fun, but this could be even better!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The thing I don't understand is this. If CTB is bringing a claim against Twitter and Persons Unknown for disclosures made on a Twitter account, would that not seem to imply that the Twitter disclosure is true? In effect, the bringing of the claim undermines the purpose of having sought the injunctive relief in the first place? As to the 'persons unknown', if those who set up the Twitter account were sensible and (for instance) operated their account through a Proxy Server or via a Virtual Private Network, they will be untraceable anyway and the Claimants will end up wasting a huge sum of money in pursuit of them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When I used to go house-to-house collecting I was pleased to say that the money raised for Amnesty International was going to preserve human rights, because it meant that political prisoners would be spared from torture and extra-judicial 'disappearances' in Latin America.


    So imagine my surprise when English lawyers are using the 'human rights act' to protect the British versions of certain French gentleman whom it would be inequitable to name.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What are Shillings going to do now, give the footballer his money back?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This "top flight Premiership footballer" has created this media storm and continues to feed it with this ludicrous application against Twitter and its users. Had his "alleged" affair come out in the press initially, it would never have made the main headline, or indeed any headline, on prime time news bulletins, and it would have been long forgotten by now.

    The likes of Ronan Keating and Mark Owen, who did not seek super injunctions, have merely ridden media gusts of wind for their alleged infidelity compared to the storm CTB is experiencing. The damage has already been done in terms of his reputation so he might as well drop this futile crusade and allow the storm to at least begin to dissipate. The longer this goes on, the worse it is going to get for him.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is a need for a considerable re-think about how to handle the nature of internet porosity (Phillips & Young 2009).
    The considerations in circulation based on Twitter are far too narrow to be of any real or practical consequence.
    The CIPR/PRCA Internet Commission papers (Journal of Communications Management 2000) showed how extensive the nature of internet porosity really is.
    There is nothing new here but it has taken the Law a decade to get excited about a small player (Twitter) and to be effective there will be a need to consider the totality of internet porosity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (6)