Key events in the debate about injunctions and super-injunctions
The term super-injunction has caused some confusion, but what "super" means is that their very existence is supposed to be unreportable - until for example an MP mentions them in the House of Commons.
The vast majority of injunctions referred to in recent media stories are plain injunctions and their existence can be reported but their subjects, or at least some of them, cannot be identified.
There has also been confusion over the origin of privacy court cases. The common misconception is that they arose from the 1998 Human Rights Act - in fact they arose decades earlier.
October - An injunction brought against the Guardian newspaper by oil trader Trafigura is lifted. This covered a parliamentary question asked by Paul Farrelly MP, leading to debate over where the line should be drawn between freedom of expression and privacy. It had stopped the newspaper identifying the MP and details of the question.
February - The Culture, Media and Sport Committee of MPs expresses "grave
concern'' about the power of super-injunctions and the possible effect on MPs' freedom of speech.
April - Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, sets up a committee to examine the use of injunctions and super-injunctions.
March - Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming uses parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of an injunction that banned a man from talking about court proceedings in which he was involved, including to his MP.
Mr Hemming also reveals that former RBS chief Sir Fred Goodwin obtained an injunction banning the media from calling him a banker.
April 24 - The Prime Minister expresses concern about the use of gagging orders, saying that Parliament should determine privacy law and not judges. He spoke after Mr Justice Eady granted a worldwide permanent ban on publication of photos of a television presenter.
April 26 - BBC journalist Andrew Marr reveals that he obtained a super-injunction to prevent reporting of an extra-marital affair. He says he is ""embarrassed" by the order, which he took out in 2008.
May 10 - A Twitter user publishes names of people they claim have obtained injunctions, highlighting the problem of gagging orders potentially being ignored by internet users.
May 13 - A blogger publishes the full text of an injunction online as a protest against the use of injunctions.
On the same day, Mr Justice Baker issues an injunction in the High Court which specifically bans publishing information on Twitter and Facebook, thought to be the first of its kind. It prevents the identification of anyone involved in the case of a woman, known as M, who has been minimally conscious since 2003.
May 19 - Liberal Democrat peer Lord Stoneham reveals during a debate in the House of Lords that Sir Fred Goodwin obtained an injunction to stop reports that he had a sexual relationship.
The Government apparently rules out introducing a new privacy law.
At an injunction hearing in the High Court, Judge Mr Justice Tugendhat says it is a common misunderstanding that privacy cases all arose out of the 1998 Human Rights Act.
May 20 - The results of a year-long review of gagging orders are published.
Under new rules, any members of the media who would be subject of an injunction would be told beforehand. Judges admit that bloggers and users of social network sites such as Twitter would not necessarily be covered.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger are accused of trying to gag the media after criticising politicians who deliberately disclosed the content of privacy cases covered by injunctions.
A professional footballer alleged to have had an affair with model Imogen Thomas takes legal action to "obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order".
May 21 - Britain's banking regulator announces it will launch a probe into the failure of the Royal Bank of Scotland in light of disclosures about Sir Fred Goodwin's private life.
May 22 - A Scottish newspaper names the England footballer in the Imogen Thomas case. Hundreds of people have now posted messages on Twitter apparently identifying him.
It emerges that a journalist who also appears on ``a widely-viewed BBC programme'' could face a contempt of court charge for allegedly identifying the player in a Tweet.
May 23 - Prime Minister David Cameron describes the privacy rulings affecting newspapers as "unsustainable" and "unfair" on the Press. He indicates that he knows the identity of the footballer at the centre of the recent row "like everybody else''.
The High Court again refuses to allow journalists to name the married player but, during a Commons debate on the use of injunctions, Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs.
MPs are told David Cameron has asked for a joint committee of peers and MPs to investigate the use of gagging orders.
May 24 - Imogen Thomas's publicist Max Clifford says her relationship with Ryan Giggs may not have made the headlines if he had not taken out a gagging order to protect his privacy.
June 1 - Almost three-quarters of the public believe judges have been too ready to issue gagging orders enabling high-profile celebrities, politicians and businessmen to protect their privacy, a opinion poll reveals.
June 5 - Irish newspaper the Sunday Herald prints reports of an alleged affair between two actors at the centre of an injunction.
October 26 - Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson says he has abandoned an injunction to prevent allegations about his private life being published.