Copyright: Martin Rickett/PA Archive/Press Association Images
Ryan Giggs has been named in court for the first time as the footballer behind an injunction taken out against the Sun, the Guardian reports.
According to the news site, the footballer “agreed to lift the anonymity injunction” in a hearing at the high court in London earlier today.
Giggs took out the injunction in order to prevent the tabloid revealing an affair.
Thousands ignored the court ruling and named him as the footballer in question on Twitter, leaving journalists in a “strange situation” concerning the reporting of his name.
The Guardian states:
Hugh Tomlinson QC, counsel for Giggs, told the court that the footballer had been subject to “large scale breaches of the order by malign individuals”.
“The claimant’s name is in the public domain contrary to court orders,” he added. “The claimant has consented to the removal of the anonymity order completely.”
Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “Anonymity no longer applies and has not applied since 1 February.”
According to the Guardian, Mr Justice Tugendhat is considering “a claim by Giggs for damages for alleged misuse of private information by the Sun”.
Giggs is also seeking an injunction “to restrain future publication of private information”, according to the report.
The court heard that the anonymity order that prevented the media from naming Giggs was lifted on 1 February. However, an “administrative error” by Giggs’s solicitors meant the Sun was not informed.
The counsel for News Group Newspapers, the publisher of the Sun, reportedly told the court the injunction claim should be thrown out.Tags: injunction, Justice Tugendhat, News Group Newspapers, Ryan Giggs, The Sun
- Guardian: Ryan Giggs launches legal action over NOTW phone hacking
- BBC CoJo: When a super injunction is not a super injunction
- Privacy injunction statistics published by Ministry of Justice as part of new pilot scheme
- Guardian: Police have more than 100 phone-hacking recordings
- Trafigura update: Jack Straw to examine use of ‘super injunctions’