Company accused of pollution

[kayakamina]

Hidden in the 333 gagging orders presently in force is a company which sought an injunction against the Independent to prevent the reporting of serious pollution.

Now THAT's Public interest if ever I saw it!

[McMouse]

Any links?

[kayakamina]

Here's the latest one-

http://www.independen...g-orders-2288607.html

[joggerjayne]

Haven't they been renamed "Giggsing Orders" ?

[McMouse]

A company accused of pollution may well feel the integrity of their product or service might be compromised. As there are no published details it's difficult to judge whether the granting of the injunction was justified.

[kayakamina]

Should there be any misrepresentations or 'lies' in the report by the newspaper the Company could sue for very substantial damages.
I believe the paper would not risk false charges & we have a right to know the accusations as it could affect our lives.

[Gromit]

http://www.theanswerb...9.html#answer-5027255

Trafigura (From Wikipedia)

On October 12, 2009 The Guardian newspaper reported that it had been prevented by a legal injunction applied for by London libel lawyers Carter Ruck (the name of the legal firm being the only fact the Guardian were free to report in the case) from covering remarks made in Parliament. It complied with this super-injunction and neither named the questioner nor published the question.

The *** Fawkes political blog identified the blocked question as likely to be linked to the Trafigura waste dumping case.[31] The Spectator also speculated that the gagging order involved Trafigura and noted that Trafigura became a 'trending topic' on Twitter with the story shared and distributed through numerous weblinks.[32][33] The Guardian confirmed that Trafigura was the source of the gagging order, after the order was lifted the next day.[34] The question that they were unable to report was from Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme:

“ To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.[35] ”

The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation have published the report in question and a copy of the gagging order against The Guardian on their website. Comedian and author Stephen Fry

[kayakamina]

Hi Gromit

This particular case is not connected with the Trafigura injunction which was lifted
after airing in the Commons.

[Gromit]

...Comedian and author Stephen Fry played a key role in spreading the story via his popular twitter page, describing the gagging order as "outrageous, grotesque and squalid".

Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian described the injunction as "a fantastic own goal". According to a press release on the website of the lawyers acting for Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, the reason that The Guardian could not report the question asked by Paul Farrelly was because a gagging order has been in place since 11 September 2009, before the MP asked the question. They also stated that it had never been their intention to prevent the press reporting on Parliament and that they had since agreed on changes with The Guardian to the gagging order so that they could report on the issue.

[Gromit]

Sounds like the same case to me.

http://web.archive.or...can_city,_17_Sep_2009

[kayakamina]

If you read the full details in the link I provided you will see that the Trafigura injunction is listed under 'unmasked orders' and they were described as Commodities Traders.

The Company accused of pollution is still under an active gagging order.

[jno]

that's the way these things work: the spreading of disputed information is suspended until it can be tested in court. I don't find this particularly outrageous, though it is open to abuse.

Interesting that the News of the World itself has sought one.

These mainly appear to be regular gagging orders, as distinct from superinjunctions. The difference in the latter case is that you aren't even allowed to say a superinjunction has been granted, let alone who it involves.