Take That star Howard Donald has seen a superinjunction against an ex-girlfriend lifted. Is this another nail in the coffin for these restrictive measures, asks Mark Lewis

The courts have been awash with celebrities and sport-stars with their de-badged honours. Superinjunctions preventing the revelation of the case itself. Secret justice about secret justice. Cases referred to by random initials. In the latest case BCD got an injunction against EFG. We can say that now but until the Court of Appeal’s latest judgment we couldn’t say who BCD was (Howard Donald) and that he’s had a relationship with EFG (Adakini Ntuli).

Of course, there are obviously matters that are private. Common-sense tells you what you should be able to say and what you should not. If Howard Donald was having a relationship with Miss Ntuli, then why is she not allowed to say so? The court has ruled that she should not be allowed to discuss the “intimate” details between them or divulge personal information of what they might or might not have done. But she is entitled to tell her story that she’d had a relationship with him.

The facts of this case are in themselves not so important to the general public as they are to the individuals involved but the principle is enormous. Superinjunctions had been used for all sorts of cases, from Trafigura to John Terry. The principle of openness had been lost in the very institution that was supposed to protect democracy.

Think of a regime where the court sits in private, in cases that are secret, and hands out injunctions to people that say you can be sent to prison for telling people that you are being sued. Zimbabwe? Saudi Arabia? Russia? No, a member state of the European Union. Any closer? England. That was what this case has sorted out. A reminder that cases should be heard in public. Howard Donald has an injunction against Adakini Ntuli. I’m sure he can Take That.

Mark Lewis is a consultant at the firm of Taylor Hampton Solicitors LLP