The use and scope of privacy injunctions will be formally monitored from today (1 August) under a pilot scheme launched by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.

The practice direction issued today sets out the terms by which non-disclosure injunctions will be recorded and transmitted to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for analysis and publication in anonymised form.

The scheme, which will run from 1 August to 31 July 2012, covers any civil proceedings in the High Court or Court of Appeal in which the court considers an application for an injunction blocking the publication of private or confidential information. This would also cover appeals or attempts to extend an existing injunction.

The practice direction sets out what information must be passed to the MoJ's chief statistician, including the claim number, whether the defendant or relevant third parties were on notice, the broad nature of the application, and the extent to which claimants tried to justify "derogations from the principle of open justice".

The scheme will not cover family proceedings or applications involving national security.

Neuberger (pictured) has also issued practice guidance on privacy applications, setting out the "proper approach to the general principle of open justice in respect of such applications". The guidance, which includes a model order, emphasises the "exceptional circumstances" in which the courts should grant injunctions, defined as "when they are strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice".

The guidance also reasserts that the burden of proof lies with claimants in trying to justify any break from open justice, as well as the expectation that third parties – including the media – should receive prior notice ahead of an attempt to secure an injunction.

However, the guidance states that "different considerations may however arise when a respondent or non-party is an internet-based organisation, tweeter or blogger", implying that the courts may be more willing to restrict prior notice in the case of non-traditional media outlets.

The guidance also states that the risk of blackmail or that notification could lead to "steps to defeat the order's purpose" could be justification to avoid prior notice in non-disclosure applications.

The two initiatives are the result of sustained controversy over the last two years regarding the use of privacy injunctions. Both moves were recommended in a report produced in May by a committee chaired by Neuberger that was set up to investigate the use of injunctions. Despite criticisms over their use, the report concluded that the current regime for granting injunctions was broadly working.