Allowing the appeal and granting the interlocutory injunction in the terms sought:
1. The judge had been correct to hold that the appellant’s Article 8 rights had been engaged. The sexual relationship was an essentially private matter. That it had become known to work colleagues did not put the information into the public domain, Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd  QB 103 considered. The appellant was reasonably entitled to expect that his colleagues would treat the information as confidential. A reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would have found the disclosure offensive.
2. The case was one where it was more likely than not that an injunction would be granted following a trial (as required by s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998):
(i) Weight had to be given not only to the appellant’s Article 8 rights but also to those of his wife, children and X. It was not clear to what extent, if at all, Collins J had paid regard to the Article 8 rights of anyone bar the appellant. X’s rights were at the very forefront of the story D wished to publish, namely that it was the fact of their adultery that led to the termination of her employment. X had made it clear to the Court of Appeal that she had no intention of bringing proceedings either against her employer or the appellant. She had supported the application for injunctive relief. The appellant’s wife equally clearly opposed publicity.
(ii) The judge had erred in finding that the harmful effect on the children could not tip the balance where the adverse publicity arose because of the way that the children’s father had behaved. The purpose of the injunction was both to preserve the stability of the family life while the appellant and his wife pursued a reconciliation and to save the children the ordeal of playground ridicule that would inevitably follow publicity. The interests of children did not automatically take precedence over the Convention rights of others, but the court should accord particular weight to the Article 8 rights of any children likely to be affected by the publication, if that would be likely to harm their interests, ZH(Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 4 and Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication)  1 AC 593 considered.
(iii) The benefits to be achieved by publication in the interests of free speech were wholly outweighed by the harm that would be done through the interference with the rights of privacy of all those affected, especially where the rights of the children were in play.
(iv) The decisive factor was the contribution the published information would make to a debate of general interest. The reasons for X leaving gave rise to no debate of general interest; they may have interested some members of the public but the matters were not of public interest.