Super-injunctions and the child abuse cover-up

Today, in a wide-ranging conversation, it was suggested to me that a figure who is ... how shall I put this? ... possibly of relevance to the matters to be considered by the UK Child Abuse Inquiry had obtained a super-injunction some time ago.

A super-injunction, as I understand it, imposes on the mainstream media a ban on repeating specified information or allegations and also prevents the mainstream media from even saying that the super-injunction exists.

That started me thinking about how often this might have happened.

Could super-injunctions have contributed in a material way to the cover-up of child abuse?

If one or more super-injunctions exist which relate to the matters which fall to be considered by the Child Abuse Inquiry, could this explain at least one part of the surprising silence of the mainstream media on some of the matters which attract a lot of discussion on Twitter?

Some other general questions:

• When was the first super-injunction granted?
• Would it be contempt of court for me publicly to ask an individual if they had sought and obtained a super-injunction?
• Would the UK Child Abuse Inquiry be able to find out whether any super-injunctions existed which related to matters of relevance to the Inquiry?
• Where / how could I find out more about super-injunctions?