Tugendhat J refuses to lift order on Fred Goodwin's affair
Matrix Chambers’ Hugh Tomlinson QC has won a partial High Court victory for the woman said to have had an affair with RBS CEO Sir Fred Goodwin, after Mr Justice Tugendhat refused to lift the order banning publication of her name but did permit publication of her occupation.
Sir Fred Goodwin
4-5 Gray’s Inn Square barrister Richard Spearman QC was instructed by Farrer & Co partner Julian Pike on behalf of News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun. NGN was attempting to have the injunction, which prevents the media from publishing the name of the woman Goodwin had a relationship with, lifted.
Tomlinson, instructed by Olswang partner Geraldine Proudler, appeared before Tugendhat J on behalf of the woman, who is known only as VBN.
The case has already been before the High Court several times. The injunction was first granted on 4 March. On 19 May Tugendhat J lifted the order banning publication of Goodwin’s name, following his identification in the House of Lords, but maintained the injunction keeping VBN’s identity secret.
In today’s judgment Tugendhat J agreed to vary the injunction to permit publication of VBN’s job description, but not her name. He said that publication of her name would be a “significant intrusion into her private and family life” but publishing details of her job was an important element in the story and the story itself was a matter of “legitimate public interest”.
Tugendhat J made it clear that VBN’s name would probably be published online despite the injunction.
“If my purpose was to keep her name confidential, that would render the injunction futile, and I would not adopt the course I have decided upon. Courts do not grant injunctions that would be futile,” he said.
“But the degree of intrusion into a person’s private life which is caused by internet publications is different from the degree of intrusion caused by print and broadcast media. Important though this story is, there are very many people who will not take the trouble to find out from VBN’s job description what her name is.”
Tugendhat J did not reveal VBN’s occupation as he said the order could still be subject to an appeal.
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 9-Jun-2011 3:06 pm
“But the degree of intrusion into a person’s private life which is caused by internet publications is different from the degree of intrusion caused by print and broadcast media. Important though this story is, there are very many people who will not take the trouble to find out from VBN’s job description what her name is.”
This is rapidly changing. I'm not very technically minded but it took me five minutes to find out about, download and use the firefox plugin that disguises my location within the UK.... and which renders Tugendhat & co utterly futile.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Interested Observer | 9-Jun-2011 3:22 pm
Had the lady's name been published earlier, everyone would have forgotten about it now. The contrived secrecy merely makes people more interested than they would have been.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
aculr | 9-Jun-2011 5:36 pm
Is there not a fine distinction to be drawn here? That between the legitimate public interest in a story which it would be of a detriment to prevent from publication and that of sheer public interest in the lives ofthe notorious or celebrities. The later is not a legitimate public interest. The former, of course, is. If the story concerns a factor relating to the collapse, and ergo government intervention, of one of the nation's largest banks, of which the public is now a major stakeholder, surely a legitimate public interest exists.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rural bliss | 10-Jun-2011 11:17 am
@ Interested Observer
I quite agree. I really couldn't have been bothered were it not for the challenge posed by the injunction. However, discovering the identity of these people has now become a form of online game.
It took me less than a minute to discover her name and photograph. Her name is
This post has been intercepted and the author terminated with extreme prejudice.
Let this be a warning.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment