What is a super-injunction?
A court order that prohibits publication of information and prohibits reporting the existence of the order itself — so the public cannot know that anything has been restricted.
The two elements:
An injunction restraining publication of specified information, typically on grounds of privacy or confidentiality.
An anonymity and secrecy provision preventing anyone reporting that the proceedings exist, who sought the order, or that any restriction is in place.
It is the second part that makes it "super", and it is what makes them constitutionally contentious — ordinary injunctions are publicly known even when their contents are not.
Why they exist. In some cases, reporting that a person has obtained an injunction would itself disclose what the injunction protects — the fact of an order, plus known circumstances, can identify the subject and the substance. Blackmail cases are the clearest example, where any publicity would defeat the purpose entirely.
The controversy. They became prominent in the UK around 2011, largely in privacy cases brought by well-known individuals. The objections were:
Open justice. The principle that justice is administered publicly is fundamental, and a secret order about secret proceedings is a substantial departure.
Wealth. The remedy was practically available only to people who could afford to pursue it.
Enforceability collapsed. Information was published outside the jurisdiction and circulated widely on social media, so the order restrained established media while being openly breached elsewhere — leaving the position that the public knew what mainstream outlets could not report.
Parliamentary privilege was used to name individuals in Parliament, which cannot be restrained.
What happened next. A committee reviewed their use, and their number reportedly declined substantially; courts became more reluctant to grant the full secrecy element, and anonymised injunctions — where the existence is reportable but the parties are not named — became the more usual remedy.
The underlying tension is between Article 8 privacy rights and Article 10 freedom of expression, which courts must balance case by case rather than by rule.
Contempt of court applies to breaches, including by individuals on social media.