1. What is a super-injunction? How does it differ from a normal injunction?
Super-injunction is not a legal term, but the name given by the press to court orders which prohibit the reporting of the fact that the injunction has been granted. A normal injunction will stop the disclosure of sensitive or confidential information, the super-injunction goes beyond this and stops people knowing about the court order. The orders are controversial because such a far-reaching prohibition is tension with the principle of open justice.

2. What happens to someone who breaches a super-injunction?
A person in breach of a super-injunction may face criminal prosecution for contempt of court. It remains to be seen whether those disclosing information on Twitter will be prosecuted.

3. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is supposed to protect freedom of speech. Do super-injunctions not breach this right?
The far-reaching terms of the super-injunction are in tension with the right to freedom of expression, including speech. However, Article 8 of the ECHR also protects the right to a private and family life. Some argue that the super injunctions are necessary to protect those privacy rights. The question is whether the super-injunctions strike the right balance between the two rights.

4. Why can MPs, such as the Lib Dem John Hemming, talk about super-injunctions in Parliament?
The principle of parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak about super-injunctions during parliamentary proceedings without fear of prosecution.

5. It has been alleged that super-injunctions mean that the rich are entitled to privacy but the poor have no protection. Is this true?
The rich and famous would no doubt reply that they are the ones subject to intrusive journalism and that is why they tend to bring the claims. However, I think there is something to be said for the argument that the costs involved in going to court generate unequal access. There have been attempts to address this problem with no-win no-fee agreements. Such arrangements raise problems with costs too as the fee incurred when a claimant wins is normally paid by the defendant.  Earlier this year the European Court of Human Rights found the no-win no-fee arrangement in the Naomi Campbell case to be in breach of the right to freedom of expression.

6. The details of some super-injunctions can be found on gossip websites and many were also revealed on twitter. Does this mean super-injunctions are pointless?
The terms of some injunctions may be undermined by the disclosures on Twitter. The problem is that people don't know which rumours are true and which are false. We also don't know how many super-injunctions have been granted, so there may be many such orders that are still working that have not been undermined by Twitter.