High Court ends long-running MoD super-injunction linked to Afghan applicant data breach
Ministry of Defence Super-Injunction ended after the High Court discharged a long-running privacy order that had prevented the reporting of an accidental disclosure of personal data relating to thousands of Afghan relocation applicants.
Mr Justice Chamberlain handed down the judgment on 15 July 2025, bringing to a close legal proceedings that began in September 2023 when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) sought urgent protection following the mistaken release of sensitive information. The ruling also allows several previously private court judgments and the original injunction order to be made public for the first time.
The proceedings concerned a super-injunction granted on 1 September 2023 after the MoD discovered that a dataset containing personal information about applicants seeking relocation to the UK from Afghanistan had been compromised. The order prevented anyone aware of the case from revealing either the existence of the data breach or the fact that an injunction had been granted.
According to the court, the dataset contained personal information and contact details relating to more than 33,000 individuals who had applied under schemes established to relocate people who had assisted the UK in Afghanistan before the Taliban returned to power in 2021. The information had been released in error in early 2022 before part of it later appeared on Facebook in August 2023, prompting the MoD to seek emergency legal protection.
When the injunction was first granted, the court accepted the Ministry’s assessment that public disclosure of the breach could expose thousands of people to the risk of serious violence or extra-judicial killing by the Taliban. Although the MoD did not initially request a super-injunction, the court concluded that such an order was necessary to protect lives while the consequences of the data breach were assessed.
Over the following two years, the injunction was reviewed repeatedly by the High Court and was also considered by the Court of Appeal. During that period, several judgments explaining the court’s reasoning were written but remained confidential because publication itself would have undermined the purpose of the injunction.
In his latest judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded that the circumstances had changed sufficiently to justify discharging the injunction. As a result, the High Court ordered the publication of four previously private High Court judgments together with the original injunction order. The Court of Appeal also authorised publication of its own previously confidential judgment in the case.
The defendants in the proceedings included Global Media and Entertainment Limited, Independent Digital News and Media Limited, Times Media Limited, Associated Newspapers Limited, Telegraph Media Group Holdings, The Financial Times Limited, and The Press Association Limited Company. Barings Law was also joined as a defendant for costs purposes.
A press summary issued by the Judiciary states that the judgment explains why the injunction, which had remained in force for nearly two years, was no longer justified. It also outlines the background to the litigation and the court’s assessment of the competing public interests, including the protection of life and the principle of open justice.
The publication of the judgments provides the first full public account of one of the most significant super-injunction proceedings heard in recent years. The newly released decisions set out the court’s reasoning at each stage of the litigation and explain how the balance between national security, personal safety and open justice evolved as further evidence became available.