High Court Discharges Super-Injunction in Afghan Data Breach Case: Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Limited & Ors

Introduction

The High Court has discharged a super-injunction in the case of Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Limited & Ors [2025], marking a significant moment in the intersection of privacy, national security, and open justice. The judgment (the “Judgment”) rebalances the competing interests of state secrecy and the public’s right to know, with the Judgment emphasising the need for democratic accountability in the handling of sensitive government errors. This Judgment (which was made public together with the earlier judgments in the case) serves as a crucial reminder of the limits of secrecy in the face of evolving evidence and the fundamental importance of freedom of expression.

Background

As has been widely reported, in early 2022, a dataset containing the personal information and contact details of nearly 19,000 Afghan applicants for UK relocation (the “Dataset”) was mistakenly released by the Ministry of Defence (“MoD”). The MoD, fearing that the Taliban may use this information to target those named (and those directly and indirectly affected by the disclosure of the Dataset) sought and were subsequently granted a super-injunction in September 2023 (the “Super-Injunction”). The Super-Injunction (i) prevented disclosure of the Dataset and (ii) barred disclosure of the Super-Injunction’s existence. The MoD’s position was that public knowledge of the breach would increase the risk to those affected, justifying exceptional secrecy.

Over the following two years, the case was subject to repeated review and evolving government policy, as the MoD worked to relocate thousands of at-risk Afghans and reassess the ongoing threat of the disclosure of the Dataset. The Super-Injunction, however, had the effect of, as described by Mr Justice Chamberlain (the judge in this case), “completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy...[leading to] a ‘scrutiny vacuum’” (paragraph 10 of the Judgment and the first judgment on this case at paragraph 39 [2023] EWHC 2999 (KB)).

Main issues for the Court to decide

• Whether the Super-Injunction remained justified in light of updated intelligence and policy reviews;
• The impact of the Super-Injunction on public and parliamentary scrutiny of government actions; and
• The evidential basis for the risk that disclosure would materially increase danger to those named in the Dataset (or affected by its disclosure).

The Judgment

The evidential shift and the discharge of the Super-Injunction

The Court’s earlier decisions to maintain the Super-Injunction were based on MoD assessments that disclosure of the Dataset could lead to Taliban reprisals. However, a comprehensive independent review commissioned by the MoD in June 2025 (the “Rimmer Review”) found that (i) the Taliban likely already possessed much of the relevant information, and, in any case, (ii) disclosure of the Dataset was not likely to lead to harm of those affected (paragraph 11 of the Rimmer Review contained in the Judgment). As such, the Rimmer Review “fundamentally undermine[d] the evidential basis” on which the Super-Injunction was originally granted (and later continued) (paragraph 21 of the Judgment). Mr Justice Chamberlain also noted the weight of the Super-Injunction and its interference with the right to expression and the public’s right to receive information.

Limited ongoing restrictions

While the Super-Injunction was lifted, the Court granted a narrower interim injunction to protect the most sensitive personal data.

Contra mundum injunctions

One notable aspect of this Judgment is the discussion surrounding the concept of a “contra mundum injunction”. The term contra mundum refers to an injunction that applies ‘against the world’ - against all persons who encounter the protected information, rather than named parties. In the first judgment on this case, the Super-Injunction granted by Robin Knowles J on 1 September 2023 was described as a contra mundum injunction, prohibiting disclosure of both the Dataset and the existence of the Super-Injunction itself.

This raises an interesting point, namely that the contra mundum effect is inherent in certain injunctions, particularly those related to confidentiality or privacy. Consequently, the idea that an injunction must be explicitly designated as contra mundum from the outset could be considered as outside of usual practice (albeit it is not entirely clear from the Judgment that this is the point being made).

The Judge also noted at paragraph 29 that the fact that the Super-Injunction had been upheld over the last two years was to the credit of the media organisations and journalists involved.

Comment

The Judgment is a clear affirmation of the principle that exceptional secrecy must be justified by compelling, up-to-date evidence. The Judgment demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to revisit and revise orders in light of new facts, and the importance of regular review where fundamental rights are at stake. For public bodies, the Judgment is a reminder to ensure that risk assessments are robust, current and transparent, and that the use of super-injunctions is truly a last resort.

But at the heart of the case is an unresolved issue.  Plainly the threat of Taliban reprisals was a pressing concern and engaged rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  But how realistic was that threat and how does the court balance some risk in this regard with the pressing interests of freedom of expression and scrutiny?  In the end, the reassessment from the MoD of the risk rendered that analysis rather moot.  But where the evidential position is uncertain, it remains a real problem.

Of particular note is the penultimate paragraph of the Judgment where the judge noted that the:

“assessments in Mr Rimmer’s report are very different from those on which the super-injunction was sought and granted. … I have recently received a … witness statement which explains which of this material was available to those who undertook the initial assessments. … It will be for others to consider whether lessons can be learned from the way the initial assessments in this case were prepared and whether the courts were, or are generally, right to accord such weight to assessments of this kind.”

In the circumstances, that appears to be rather muted criticism of the evidence provided by the MoD to the Court.  In his 2011 Guidance on “Interim Non-Disclosure Orders” (that is, super injunctions), the Master of Rolls emphasised the need for close scrutiny on the granting of such orders and the need for the applicant “to comply with the high duty to make full, fair and accurate disclosure of all material information to the court”.  It may be the judge’s remarks could be seen to suggest a potential disparity in this regard.

For further information, please email the authors or your usual CMS contact.

This article was prepared with the assistance of Rebecca Webster, trainee in CMS London.