header-logo header-logo

16 July 2025
Issue: 8125 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection , Privacy , International , National security , Military
printer mail-detail

List put Afghans at risk of Taliban reprisal

The High Court has lifted a two-year super-injunction concealing the leak of a Ministry of Defence (MoD) list of more than 18,000 Afghan nationals who assisted British forces against the Taliban

The MoD learned of the data breach three years ago, initially thinking only a small number of people were affected. In August 2023, it learned the spreadsheet, of Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy applicants, was circulating online and contained details of far more people than first suspected. After a newspaper began investigating, the MoD sought an injunction. Mr Justice Robin Knowles not only granted the injunction but went further, barring disclosure of the injunction itself.

However, Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered the super-injunction be lifted this week, in MoD v Global Media and others [2025] EWHC 1806 (KB). He found ‘the sheer scale of the decision making, in terms of the numbers involved and the financial cost, meant that further secrecy was not feasible and was objectionable in principle’.

His decision follows an MoD review which concluded the Taliban likely already possess the information, therefore disclosure was ‘unlikely substantially to raise the risk faced by the individuals whose data it includes’.

Iain Wilson, managing partner of Brett Wilson, said: ‘Data breaches are an inescapable fact of modern life, with consequences that range from minor to potentially life-threatening.

‘Here, the Ministry of Defence appeared to present a strong evidential basis for the latter, and in September 2023 the court understandably granted a wide injunction. The MoD argued that revealing the injunction's existence could prompt the Taliban to try to locate the list, knowing it was considered highly sensitive. That reasoning holds, although any legal proceedings risk attracting attention.

‘The order has since been narrowed, following a government report that found the risk to those named is low. If that assessment is right, the basis for the original injunction has been undermined. There is clear public interest in the fact the government considered spending £7bn to relocate 20,000 people, especially if that was never truly necessary.’

Deputy Information Commissioner Emily Keaney said she was reassured the MoD has ‘minimised the risk of this happening again’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll