Two recent decisions have considered the extent to which injunctions might indirectly impose restrictions upon third parties. The issue was most famously (and controversially) explored by the House of Lords in the Spycatcher case (Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1992] 1 A.C. 191), where it was held that a third party would be guilty of contempt if he deliberately did an act that undermined the purpose for which the injunction had been imposed in the first place; and this, notwithstanding that the injunction was not directly binding, could have a significantly inhibiting impact upon freedom of expression.

In Attorney General v. Punch Ltd. [2003] 2 W.L.R. 49, the Attorney General obtained an injunction against David Shayler, the former MI5 officer, and Associated Newspapers, restraining publication of information relating to the security services pending a breach of confidence action being brought against Shayler. A proviso permitted publication of material that had been consented to by the Attorney General.