Take That star Howard Donald's super-injunction lifted

The Court of Appeal today lifted a super-injunction preventing the naming of Take That's Howard Donald who has won an order preventing the publication of confidential information by a former girlfriend.

Mr Donald, who has a house near Ringwood, in the New Forest, won the injunction in April after receiving a text message from musician Adakini Ntuli which said: ''Why shud I continue 2 suffer financially 4 the sake of loyalty when selling my story will sort my life out?''

Before solicitors became involved, Ms Ntuli, who is a single mother of two children of whom Mr Donald is not the father, secured the services of publicist Max Clifford and entered into negotiations with the News of the World.

The order granted by Mr Justice Eady restrained her from doing certain things that cannot be published. It also prevented her and others from publishing the fact that the injunction has been obtained.

Today, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sedley dismissed Ms Ntuli's appeal seeking the discharge of the injunction but allowed her appeal in relation to the super-injunction and anonymity issues.

In the judgment, Lord Justice Maurice Kay said that Mr Donald had never married but had had a number of relationships and was the father of two children.

For a period of time since 2000, he and Ms Ntuli had a relationship but did not live together. The duration and intensity of the relationship were matters of dispute.

Mr Donald was also in other relationships during the same period, said the judge, and by the end of 2009, the relationship between the pair seemed to have come to an end.

He added that the injunction obtained covered ''any intimate, personal or sexually explicit details about the relationship...including any facts of a sexual nature'', and another category referred to ''intimate or sexual activity''.

At appeal, Ms Ntuli's lawyers argued that there should not have been an injunction at all and that, in any event, anonymisation was inappropriate.

Her position was that she did not intend to publish any descriptions of sexual activity with Mr Donald, and that Mr Justice Eady was wrong to extend the order to cover ''non-sexual information'' such as conversations about the nature of their relationship.

The injunction was aimed at public revelation and did not extend to discussions with close friends and family.

Dismissing Ms Ntuli's appeal in relation to the substantive injunction, Lord Justice Maurice Kay said that Mr Justice Eady who, he added, was ''steeped in litigation of this kind'', came to the correct conclusion.

He said that the judge clearly had regard to Ms Ntuli's stated motives for wanting to sell her story, took into account Mr Donald's admissions as to his past behaviour and had proper regard to the possible impact of publicity on the parties' respective children.