Out of sight, out of mind? Britney secures injunction to prevent more leaks

Another interesting snippet from The Times today related the fact that Britnet Spears's lawyers (Schillings) have been awarded an injunction to prevent the publication of revelations regarding her time in rehab (for more, see here). The injunction is against 'John Doe', the person or persons who has/have been leaking information, but having been communicated to the media in the UK will also cover them.

Schillings are also seeking details of the identity of informants from newspapers that have already published material relating to the singer's treatment. She is said to reserve the right and indeed intends to challenge false allegations which have already been published about her time in rehabilitation. All of this begs three questions:
- first, what are the media playing at? After Campbell v MGN and related cases, it must be as clear as day that reporting of this nature is highly susceptible to legal challenge. Are they simply pushing the boat as far as possible in the expectation that damages will not exceed the financial benefit of carying the stories? What of the expectation that such earlier cases spelt the end for intrusion on privacy through unauthorised / kiss and tell journalism?
- secondly, have the courts got the balance right between privacy protection and freedom of the press (i) in the granting of injunctions (ii) in the substantive law?
- thirdly, what is up with Ms Spears?!