AFAIK It's virtually impossible *not* to get a super injunction if you put in for it.
The Plaintiff (whose asking for one):Anonymous.
That's right even the *judge* does not know whose asking for it.
The people against who the injunction is being requested: Anyone.
As the Palintiff might not be *sure* who has the damaging information that's going to be revealed how can they approach anyone who *might* have it?
And of course who might *contradict* the Plaintiff's description.
Anonymous plaintiffs, no one to contradict their (expensive) QC's claims (I'd call them an "argument" but who would provide it).
BTW current privacy laws do *not* gag UK newspapers from reporting such matters.
UK judges *interpretation* of them do.
But with so *much* anonymity how could they *not* issue them?
How could you *not* get an injunction throwing in *claims* (no one to deny them remember) of blackmail, child safety, financial ruin etc.
Consider the case of the noted romantic authoress who seeks an SI to stop "untrue" claims about her "alleged" lurid personal life involving drink, drugs and promiscuity affecting her children, some of whom have special needs.
That's right. Katie Price seeks an SI to stop media suggesting she' s a bit of a s**g and *gets* it.