The battle against legalese" ... has made steady progress since the term was first coined in the early 20th century. Yet one uniquely baffling genre of court document continues to grow: a new generation of omnipotent injunctions ... more abstract, all-encompassing, and powerful [than simple injunctions]. [Imagine] one that, in addition to prohibiting publication of information, ordered that you "must not use and must not publish or communicate or disclose the information that A has obtained an injunction". Regrettably, this is not a rare Kafkaesque experiment in civil procedure. It is, in fact, reality in a growing number of cases brought before England and Wales's high court. Of course it is impossible to say just how many of these cases there are. The parties are unable to discuss them, so their existence often passes by unnoticed by a wider audience; and even where the existence of these injunctions does come to the attention of the press, journalists are equally bound by their terms, risking contempt of court should they report them. There are indications though, that these once rare weapons are becoming a more regular feature of the legal battlefield. More alarming still is the fact that corporations, with motives centred more on their brand and reputation than personal disaster, are invoking these orders, gagging others from saying they have been gagged, let alone whatever they initially wanted to speak out about.

"