Judge bars naming adulterer

This story, from the Telegraph, seems quite revealing: 

A cuckolded husband was banned by the High Court yesterday from naming a married public figure who conducted an affair with his wife.

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, Mr Justice Eady granted the adulterer — who may be identified only as CC — an injunction against the betrayed husband, referred to as AB.

The judge suggested that even an adulterer might have a legitimate expectation of privacy. AB had wanted to expose CC in the media. . . .

In his ruling, the judge said: "There is a powerful argument that the conduct of an intimate or sexual relationship is a matter in respect of which there is 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'."

Is the "expectation of privacy" that an adulterer has -- let's assume that, subjectively, he has one -- really one that the law should regard as "legitimate" or reasonable?  Is it an expectation that the law should -- as law does -- help to create and protect?