Super injunctions don’t usually fit within the financial world, having more of a place in the celebrity world, shielding those who wish to keep their ‘extra curricular activities’ from the worlds press.
The matter has now become of public interest thanks to a certain Fred Goodwin former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland before it’s near collapse and £45 billion bailout from the government in 2008. Goodwin took out a super injunction to shield his private life, no alarm bells there – just another person in the public eye gagging the press from reporting on their extra-marital dalliances. What is of grave concern and in public interest is that he could be using the injunction to hide information relevant to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The super injunction means that not only will journalists be barred from reporting the story but astoundingly also bars them from actually reporting the existence of the Super Injunction.
This actually raises the issue of should the super injunction have been granted in the first instance? If it is the case and it is being used as ‘smoke and mirrors’ for the Royal Bank of Scotland failure then the tax payer had to foot the bill for the bailout.
If Goodwin is just attempting to shield his private life, he is clearly not doing a very good job as public interest relating to the scandal is greater than ever! Of course the other question raised is do these fancy super injunctions really even work when a few taps of a keyboard and a Google search will usually give you the answer you’re looking for.