Finding for the Cs, dismissing D1’s applications:
In order to succeed, D1 had to establish on the basis of the pleaded facts that the claims were unarguable as a matter of law, or an abuse. This was a high hurdle to surmount.
There was a heavy reputation element to the Cs’ claims, but this did not describe the essence of their claims. There were other claims as well, and these were not de minimis. It was not possible to describe the “nub” or reality of the claims as claims based on damage to reputation only. Not all of the enhanced embarrassment (enhanced because of the publication) could necessarily be ascribed to reputational damage.
It was not clear, as a matter of principle, that a claim based on damage to reputation could only be bought in defamation and not on the basis of confidence or privacy, such that the present claim was an abuse of process. The authorities relied on by D1 (see - of the judgment) did not suffice to establish this proposition. D1 had an argument, but not a sufficiently conclusive one. The point remained open to be argued at trial.
It followed that the possibility of recovering for damages to reputation could not be excluded. It was therefore unnecessary to consider D1’s submission that the maximum allowable damages would be so small that the case was an abuse.
The key authority relied on by D1 – Axel Springer AG v Germany (2012) 55 EHRR 15 – did not support an absolute right of the press to publish the fact of an arrest and its circumstances. As with a large number of disputes under Convention rights, this would be a question of fact and degree and highly fact sensitive.
The Judge considered the public nature of the central events in each case, suggesting that an aircraft cabin was no more a private place than the interior of a bus, where members voluntarily collect together, but not in the expectation of any privacy (see  of the judgment).