British Data Management Plc v Boxer Commercial Removals Plc and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1996 |
| Date | 22 February 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Hirst, Lord Justice Aldous and Sir Iain Glidewell
Libel - quia timet injunction - reasonable certainty as to wording of threatened publication
In an action for a quia timet injunction to restrain the publication of a threatened libel there had to be reasonable certainty as to the words of the threatened publication, which would normally require the pleading of the actual words or words to the same effect.
Therefore, an action for an injunction to restrain publication of statements to the effect that a company was guilty of civil wrongs or criminal offences in relation to the contents of its accounts, annual reports or share prospectus would be struck out for failing to meet that test.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment allowing an appeal by the defendants, Boxer Commercial Removals plc and Mr Paul Todd, against the refusal of Mr Justice Forbes in the Queen's Bench Division on March 11, 1994 to strike out an action by the plaintiffs, British Data Management plc, for an injunction restraining them from publishing or broadcasting any statement to any parties concerning the plaintiffs or any of its subsidiary companies to the effect that they were guilty of criminal offences.
Before the hearing of the appeal the plaintiffs amended the terms of the injunction sought to one restraining the defendants "from publishing any statement concerning the plaintiffs or any of them to the effect that they are guilty of civil wrongs or criminal offences in relation to the contents of company accounts, annual reports or the prospectus in March 1992 for the placement of shares in British Data Management plc."
The Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis that leave to amend would be granted if the action continued.
Mr Andrew Nicol, QC and Mr David Price, solicitor, for the defendants; Mr Desmond Browne, QC and Mr Harry Boggis-Rolfe for the plaintiffs.
LORD JUSTICE HIRST, giving the judgment of the court, said that an important issue in the law of defamation had arisen, namely whether an action for a quia timet injunction was maintainable to restrain a defendant from publishing a threatened libel by a plaintiff who could not prove with any degree of certainty the words which the threatened publication was going to contain.
The judge had acknowledged that it was normally incumbent on a plaintiff to specify the precise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ng Kim Ho v Chai Sze Shin
- Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran
-
Alan Massie V. Callum Mccaig And Others
...Branson v BowerELRWLR [2002] QB 737; [2002] 2 WLR 452; [2001] EMLR 33 British Data Management plc v Boxer Commercial Removals plcUNK [1996] 3 All ER 707; [1996] EMLR 349 Clarke v Norton [1910] VLR 494 Dickson Minto WS v Bonnier Media Ltd 2002 SLT 776 Duncan v Associated Scottish Newspapers ......
-
Stovin and Another v Norfolk County Council
... ... On 14 January 1988 the council wrote to British Rail, the owner of the land, suggesting that part ... ...