This PDF document is the 'super-injunction' which Trafigura and Carter-Ruck used to gag the Guardian (and "persons unknown") on September 11. It was granted in private by Mr Justice Maddison, who was until last year a Crown Court judge in Manchester. It is being published for the first time in order to allow a wider public to see how these gagging orders are constructed and shielded from public view.

Page one

Note that the order does not mention the name of Trafigura. The document has been "anonymised" – using initials apparently plucked at random – so that no one can tell who is bringing the action. The claimants are listed as "RJW and SJW" rather than Trafigura. No one searching any court list could ever guess that this was a large trading company going to court. The second defendants are listed as "persons unknown" because Carter-Ruck doesn't know who leaked the Minton Report to the Guardian. Whoever they are, they are covered, too.

The order begins by warning of the possible penalties for infringing the breach of a court order. When Carter-Ruck warned that the Guardian would be in contempt of court if they published the parliamentary question by Paul Farrelly, they knew of the possible penalties for disobedience: directors of the Guardian could be imprisoned or fined – and the assets of the newspaper seized. There is no specific defence to this kind of contempt of court.

Page two

A: The Guardian agrees not to publish any part of the Minton Report, or cause or authorise anyone else to do so. The order envisages that there will be a further hearing on 18 September.

B: The newspaper has to keep any copies of the document it may have. This can be significant if the claimants want to try and have the document returned or if, for instance, they want to see if they can identify the source who leaked it.

Page three

5a: Here the judge worries about the possibility that publicity about the injunction could "unfairly … damage the interests of" Trafigura. He therefore orders that the court hearing must remain a secret: no one is allowed to describe it, or the claim.

5b: The judge orders the "alphabet soup" approach to naming the case. No one will be able to see Trafigura has been to court.

5c: Just in case there's any doubt about the total secrecy of the proceedings, there can be no reference to any "persons or places" related to the case.

6: All the papers relating to the case will be sealed. That means no one (snooping journalists or MPs, for instance) can inspect any of the witness statements or any other papers to do with the case.

7: Having effectively pronounced an injunction on the injunction and put a wall of secrecy around the whole affair, we move on to the injunction itself. It says that everything about the Minton Report is secret and nothing about it can be published by the Guardian.

Page four

10 More blood-curdling clauses about the secrecy of the proceedings. The Guardian must not publish any papers, documents, witness statements or letters to do with the case.

Page five

12 The order specifically disapplies the usual rule which provides that, where a third party who did not attend the hearing is served with the order, it is entitled to ask to see the materials presented to the judge. This disapplication is another common feature of these sort of super-injunctions.

13 Costs. The order makes no specific order about costs at this stage - this is because the judge is not able at this point to decide where the overall merits of the case lie. The Guardian agreed to pay some of the costs of this action – this was because the judge found that the Minton report was, indeed, a confidential document on account of the legal privilege attached to it. He said on the basis of the evidence he had been shown at this time there was no public interest in publishing it. Other issues, to do with whether the document was effectively in the public domain already; whether the whole proceedings should be secret and anonymous; and to do with parliamentary reporting of the injunction, were either never fully argued over or never argued at all because the parties had not yet returned to court. The Guardian paid only a fraction of the costs it believed Carter-Ruck would have demanded, or would have incurred.

18 The order was directed at the Guardian. But this clause warns that anyone who was aware of it and knowingly breached it would also be in contempt of court and could be locked up or have their assets seized.