'This tape is 100 per cent fake and is just someone trying to cash in on her X Factor role. She is horrified that someone would go to the extreme lengths of fabricating a video. It is absolutely not her. Tulisa has categorically never allowed anyone to film her having sex'.
At this time, a spokesperson for Tulisa stated: 'Tulisa has asked us not to comment on speculation about her personal life'. However, a spokesman for Pappzd Magazine wrote on their Twitter page that: 'So ummm... Tulisa’s lawyers just left our office after serving us a handwritten cease and desist notice'.
On Monday afternoon, counsel for Tulisa made an application before Mr Justice Tugendhat to restrain publication of the sex tape. He granted an injunction prohibiting anyone from 'using, publishing, communicating or disclosing all or any part of the film to any other person'. He has yet to give the reasons for his decision, although they are expected in the near future. Meanwhile, Ms Kabahita claimed that said staff 'were in shock' when the publication was presented with the order. She stated:
'Her lawyers came to our offices and demanded to take it down due to privacy law. And we were given a deadline in which to take it down otherwise there would be further action. So basically we’ve had to take the video down'.
'The question in a case of misuse of private information is whether the information is private not whether it is true or false. The truth or falsity of the information is an irrelevant inquiry in deciding whether the information is entitled to be protected and judges should be chary of becoming side-tracked into that irrelevant inquiry'.
One case which did make it to court involved Jeremy Clarkson. Jeremy Clarkson denied a claim by his ex-wife Alexandra Hall that he had an affair with Ms Hall after he re-married. Mr Clarkson denied the affair but in October 2010 obtained an injunction to restrain the publication of purported private information: AMM v HXW  EWHC 2457. In October 2011, Mr Clarkson discontinued his privacy action leading to the discharging of the anonymised privacy injunction because such injunctions are 'pointless' and 'do not work'. Indeed he stated:
'You take out an injunction against somebody or some organisation and immediately news of that injunction and the people involved and the story behind the injunction is in a legal-free world on Twitter and the internet'.
Mr Edwards also used Twitter to respond to Tulisa's accusations. He tweeted: 'To find the truth both sides of the story should be heard b4 passing judgement thatisall'. Then a short while later he also tweeted: 'I believe in silence being a sign of integrity but in this case I guess I'll have to speak up and Lay out the facts and let you guys decide'.
'As you can imagine I’m devastated, heartbroken. I’ve been in bits for the past few days. When you share an intimate moment with someone that you love and you care about and trust you never imagine for one minute that that footage may at any point be shared with the rest of the UK or even people around the world. So as you can imagine it’s a pretty tough time for me, but I don’t feel that I should be the one to take the heat for it or the stick. This is something that he took upon himself to put online... and he’s now sitting in silence pretending it’s not him on the tape, when it is.'
The IPKat is shocked by Pappzd Magazine's response to Tulisa's YouTube clip: 'Anyway, so ummm…. Tulisa now you’ve confirmed what Pappzd always knew, do you mind if we put the vid back up? OK, thanks'. To him, it suggests an utter disregard for the principles at hand ...
Merpel notes, without further comment, Tulisa's statement that "when you share an intimate moment with someone that you love and you care about and trust you never imagine for one minute that that footage may at any point be shared with the rest of the UK or even people around the world".