Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
Goncalo Ferreira-Malosso v Justina Nowakowska
24 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2696 (KB)
High Court
Someone got a court order quickly to stop someone else from saying bad things about them. The court realised a mistake was made in granting the order because the wrong legal rules were used. The order was cancelled, and the person who got the order didn't get in trouble, but the other person got more time to decide if they want to settle the case.
Key Facts
- •Claimant obtained a without-notice interim injunction in defamation proceedings.
- •Defendant did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
- •The injunction restrained the defendant from further disseminating defamatory statements.
- •The claimant's application misrepresented the correct legal test for interim injunctions in defamation cases.
- •The claimant's claim included causes of action in libel and harassment.
- •The defendant asserted the statements were true and wished to settle the case.
Legal Principles
The threshold for granting an interim injunction in libel is exceptionally high; the American Cyanamid principles do not apply. The claimant must demonstrate that their claim is "bound to succeed".
Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269; Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972
In cases involving a potential infringement of Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression), the Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3) applies, requiring the court to be satisfied the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. In exceptional circumstances, a lesser likelihood may suffice.
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3); Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253
If the 'nub' of a claim combining defamation and harassment is the protection of reputation, the stricter Bonnard v Perryman test applies. If the main purpose is harassment, the 'more likely than not' standard may apply.
RBT v YLA [2024] EWHC 1855 (KB); Siddiqi v Aidiniantz [2019] EWHC 1321 (QB); Linklaters LLP v Mellish [2019] EWHC 177 (QB)
Applications for without-notice orders affecting freedom of expression require compelling reasons for not notifying the respondent (Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(2)).
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(2)
Outcomes
Interim injunction set aside.
The claimant failed to meet the high threshold for an interim injunction in defamation, misrepresenting the applicable legal test to the court. The 'nub' of the claim was the protection of reputation, thus the Bonnard v Perryman rule applied.
Claimant's application to amend the Claim Form to include harassment was granted.
The solicitor advocate for the claimant acknowledged an error in the original pleading.
No further action taken against the claimant's solicitor beyond setting aside the injunction.
The solicitor apologized for the error and the court considered his explanation.
Proposed consent order not approved.
The consent order contained vague language and failed to address the setting aside of the interim injunction.
Defendant given 7 days to reconsider settlement on amended terms.
To allow the defendant time to reflect and seek legal advice.