Jennifer James questions the principles of the ubiquitous super-injunction
The Insider is a sucker for a wedding and when William turned to Kate (sorry, Catherine) in the Abbey last month and said “you look beautiful” I came over all emotional. Of course, having been unsuccessfully wed myself years ago I am not naive enough to think everything will go smoothly; there are almost guaranteed to be problems. Apparently Camilla is keen to impress upon the Duchess of Cambridge who’s the boss; I can see that one going down well with William.
Increasingly it seems that when things do go wrong between spouses or lovers, the more powerful (and/or wealthy) of the two is able to go to court to obtain a so-called “super-injunction” preventing, in the most extreme cases, not only the printing of any kiss-and-tell, but also any reference to the fact that an injunction has been applied for.
Such injunctions are likely to cost in the region of £25,000–£50,000. The usual “costs follow the event” rule generally means that any person or entity that has done or threatened to do a wrongful act, and
