NewsBreakingOnline

Wealthy British man claims sister-in-law is linked to foreign internet postings that reveal he obtained injunction against her A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose. The financier, who can be known only as “the Hon Mr Zam”, claims his sister-in-law is linked to foreign internet postings that reveal that he obtained an injunction against her in the high court. This latest move, orchestrated by the solicitors Farrer & Co, raises the bizarre legal possibilities of a woman who cannot be named being jailed at the request of her equally anonymous brother-in-law, and of the entire trial for alleged contempt of court taking place in secret. The launch of these contempt proceedings is part of the recent flood of superinjunctions and anonymised injunctions, which British judges are approving in efforts to clamp down on gossip, libel and even blackmail on the internet. The novel moves by Zam follow a separate attempt by a an allegedly philandering footballer to take legal action against the US-based Twitter website to force it to identify tweeters who have defied a superinjunction. On Monday, the footballer Ryan Giggs, who is alleged to have had an affair with the Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas, was named in parliament by the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemmings in the culmination of a “Twitter-storm” that largely nullified the superinjunction he had obtained. Last week’s Neuberger report on superinjunctions stressed that litigants should only be awarded anonymity only if it was “strictly necessary”. Mr Justice Tugendhat granted anonymity in March to both Zam and the sister-in-law he is trying to silence after his lawyers claimed it would be unfair for him and his family to suffer speculation about the circumstances that had led them to go to the high court. Due to the judge’s order, which also suppressed publication of details of the alleged libels, it is difficult to report the full background of what appears to be a venomous family dispute revolving around shares in a £100m, inherited offshore trust fund. Zam claims he is being blackmailed, with false allegations being made to his work colleagues, and worldwide online vilification being threatened. The case highlights problems associated with the global nature of the internet, and the near impossiblity of British court orders to silence blogs and tweets originating overseas. Zam’s sister-in-law lives in England, but her husband and some of his business associates are based in Rome, out of the UK’s jurisidiction. They are alleged to be behind internet postings purporting to come from Niger, in Africa, which is even further beyond the reach of the British courts. The postings reveal the entire text of the supposedly secret Tugendhat order. They identify the people involved, and publish the allegations, which Zam says are completely false. Normally, in a libel case, the complainer wants to have their reputation publicly vindicated by a courtroom statement that the allegations are false, and an injunction preventing anyone else from repeating them. But Julian Pike, the £450-an-hour partner at Farrer & Co who is handling the case, has instead gone down a novel anonymity route. This prevents any investigation of the true background of those who his client claims are international blackmailers. Superinjunctions Internet David Leigh guardian.co.uk