Granting the injunction:
(1) C did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the photographs and their content:
(a) The photographs were taken at a private party on private premises and show him behaving in a way he would be unlikely to behave in public;
(b) C had consented to the photographs being taken and shared with mutual friends, but this did not equate to consent to them being published in a national newspaper – D was most unlikely to establish such consent at trial;
(c) C had not become a public figure in his own right, either through publicity relating to his first marriage, or his job at Virgin Galactic. Only on one occasion could he be said to have courted publicity, and he had sought no publicity about his relationship with Ms Winslet. In any event, the argument that having courted publicity on the occasion of his first marriage acts as type of waiver of privacy about this aspect of his life is an example of the discredited “zone argument”.
(d) The photographs had not come into the public domain through their posting on Facebook. It was not the case that there was nothing by way of privacy left to be protected by an injunction. The photographs had not been easily accessible, an internet search of C’s name would not have found them. A tip-off was the most likely source.
(2) As to the balancing exercise, C was likely to succeed:
(a) The photographs and their contents would not contribute to a debate about matters of public interest. Nothing illegal or immoral was depicted and there was no hypocrisy argument to be made (Ferdinand v NGN  EWHC 2454 (QB)). That a newspaper wishes to criticise the behaviour of someone in the public eye does not necessarily equate to contributing to a debate of public interest (von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1). Although a margin of appreciation is to be given to journalists, the court can and should seek to assess, on the facts of the case before it, whether publication is sought in order to genuinely inform a debate of public interest, or rather to titillate those readers who are interested in the behaviour of persons in the public eye.
(b) The timing of the threatened publication – very shortly after it came to the attention of the media that C had married Ms Winslet – also suggested that D intended to provide details of the private peccadillos of C to its readership rather than to contribute to a debate of public interest.
(c) There was a real risk that publication would result in teasing or ridicule of Ms Winslet’s children at school, such that it could damage the caring family relationship which C was seeking to establish with them. This is an important factor in the balancing exercise (ETK v NGN  EWCA Civ 439).
(d) C was not a person with a substantial public profile, either through his work or his marriages.