Cream Holdings Ltd and Others v Banerjee and another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD,LORD WOOLF,LORD HOFFMANN,LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE,BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKHL 44 |
| Date | 14 October 2004 |
| Court | House of Lords |
and others
and others
[2004] UKHL 44
The Appellate Committee comprised:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Woolf
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Scott of Foscote
Baroness Hale of Richmond
HOUSE OF LORDS
My Lords,
The Human Rights Act 1998 introduced into the law of this country the concept of Convention rights. Section 12 made special provision regarding one of these rights: the right to freedom of expression. When considering whether to grant relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression the court must have particular regard to the importance of this right: section 12(4). Additionally, section 12(2) set out a prerequisite to the grant of relief against a person who is neither present nor represented. The court must be satisfied the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent or that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified. Further, section 12(3) imposed a threshold test which has to be satisfied before a court may grant interlocutory injunctive relief:
'No such relief [which might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression] is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.'
On this appeal your Lordships' House is concerned with the meaning and application of the word 'likely' in this provision.
The factual context
The context in which this question arises on this appeal is as follows. The plaintiffs in this action are the Cream group of companies. These companies began as the Cream nightclub in Liverpool in 1992 and then expanded and diversified their business. They opened other clubs elsewhere and began to stage large events such as dance festivals. Now they also carry on a substantial business franchising their brand name and logo and merchandising clothes and other items. They are an important business in Liverpool featuring both on general news pages and financial pages of newspapers.
The first defendant, Chumki Banerjee, is a chartered accountant. She was the financial controller of one of the companies in the Cream group for three years from February 1998 to January 2001. Before then Ms Banerjee worked for a firm of accountants and was responsible for dealing with the Cream group's financial affairs between 1996 and 1998. The second defendant, which I shall refer to simply as the 'Echo', is the publisher of Merseyside's two long-established and leading daily newspapers, the 'Daily Post' and the 'Liverpool Echo'.
In January 2001 Cream dismissed Ms Banerjee. When she left she took with her copies of documents she claims show illegal and improper activity by the Cream group. She passed these to the Echo with additional information. She received no payments for this. On 13 and 14 June 2002 the Echo published articles about alleged corruption involving one director of the Cream group and a local council official. On 18 June 2002 the Cream group sought injunctive relief to restrain publication by the newspaper of any further confidential information given it by Ms Banerjee.
The proceedings
The defendants admitted the information was confidential. Their defence was that disclosure was in the public interest. Lloyd J held there were seriously arguable issues both ways on whether this defence would succeed. Cream had established the 'necessary likelihood' of a permanent injunction for the purposes of section 12(3): 'I do not say it is more likely than not, but there is certainly a real prospect of success'. The balance of convenience test favoured the grant of an interim injunction. Cream were likely to suffer irreparable loss of an unquantifiable nature if the story were published. Restraint of publication would delay the Echo's story but not necessarily preclude its publication altogether. Given the undoubted obligation of confidentiality inherent in Ms Banerjee's employment contract, the disputes of fact on some matters, and the possibility that Ms Banerjee's complaints of defaults by the Cream group might be met adequately by disclosure to certain regulatory authorities as distinct from publication at large by the press, the right course was to freeze the position and direct a speedy trial if desired. On 5 July 2002 Lloyd J granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendants until trial from publishing, disclosing or using information defined as confidential information in a confidential schedule. In order to prevent the immediate loss of confidentiality Lloyd J set out part of his judgment in a private appendix.
The defendants appealed. The judge, they said, had applied the wrong test under section 12(3), that of a 'real prospect of success' rather than 'more likely than not'. Further, on the basis of his factual conclusions the judge erred in deciding Cream were likely to succeed at the trial.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Simon Brown, Sedley and Arden LJJ, dismissed the appeal: [2003] EWCA Civ 103, [2003] Ch 650. Sedley LJ dissented. Again, in order to maintain privacy for the information separate confidential judgments were delivered by two members of the court.
All three lords justices agreed the judge was correct in his interpretation of 'likely' in section 12(3), although they differed in their reasoning. As to the facts, Simon Brown LJ held the judge was entitled to conclude Cream has a real prospect of success at the trial. The judge was also entitled to decide that in all the circumstances he should exercise his discretion in favour of making an order involving prior restraint. Simon Brown LJ, however, expressed reservations about the latter point. Not every judge would necessarily have reached the same conclusion as Lloyd J, and he himself might well not have done so. Arden LJ was also lukewarm in her view of the judge's decision, noting that in all the circumstances it could not be said to be perverse.
On this point Sedley LJ dissented. Lloyd J erred in his conclusion that there is likely to be no public interest justification for the disclosure of the story which Miss Banerjee gave the Echo and the Echo wishes to publish. The principal matter the Echo wishes to publish is 'incontestably' a matter of serious public interest. The essential story was one which, whatever its source, no court could properly suppress.
Ms Banerjee and the Echo appealed to your Lordships' House, raising arguments along the same lines as those they presented to the Court of Appeal.
Section 12(3) and 'likely'
As with most ordinary English words 'likely' has several different shades of meaning. Its meaning depends upon the context in which it is being used. Even when read in context its meaning is not always precise. It is capable of encompassing different degrees of likelihood, varying from 'more likely than not' to 'may well'. In ordinary usage its meaning is often sought to be clarified by the addition of qualifying epithets as in phrases such as 'very likely' or 'quite likely'. In section 12(3) the context is that of a statutory threshold for the grant of interim relief by a court.
The legal background against which this statutory provision has to be interpreted is familiar. In the 1960s the approach adopted by the courts to the grant of interlocutory injunctions was that the applicant had to establish a prima facie case. He had to establish this before questions of the so-called 'balance of convenience' fell to be considered. A prima facie case was understood, at least in the Chancery Division, as meaning the applicant must establish that as the evidence currently stood on the balance of probability he would succeed at the trial.
The courts were freed from this fetter by the decision of your Lordships' House in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. Lord Diplock said, at pages 407-408, that the court must be satisfied the claim 'is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried'. But it is no part of the court's function at this stage of litigation to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit nor to decide difficult questions of law calling for detailed argument and mature consideration. Unless the applicant fails to show he has 'any real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial', the court should proceed to consider where the balance of convenience lies. As to that, where other factors appear to be evenly balanced 'it is a counsel of prudence' for the court to take 'such measures as are calculated to preserve the status quo'.
When the Human Rights Bill was under consideration by Parliament concern was expressed at the adverse impact the Bill might have on the freedom of the press. Article 8 of the European Convention, guaranteeing the right to respect for private life, was among the Convention rights to which the legislation would give effect. The concern was that, applying the conventional American Cyanamid approach, orders imposing prior restraint on newspapers might readily be granted by the courts to preserve the status quo until trial whenever applicants claimed that a threatened publication would infringe their rights under article 8. Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...time. The Test 18 Particularly following the decision of the House of Lords in Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others [2004] UKHL 44, (the speeches of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords were handed down on 14 October 2004), Mr Spearman argues that relevant the te......
-
Allister (James Hugh) v Paisley Jnr (Ian), Douglas (Derek J) and JC Print Ltd
...be granted unless the 6 applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. In Cream Holdings Limited v. Bannerjee [2005] 1 AC 253(Cream’s case) the House of Lords ruled that the term “likely” was not to be given a rigid definition, but was to be applied pragmatically t......
-
Murray v Newsgroup Newspapers and Others
...CO COUNCIL 2003 1 IR 567 2003 2 ILRM 147 2003/13/2782 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S12 (UK) CREAM HOLDINGS LTD & ORS v BANERJEE & ANOR 2005 1 AC 253 2004 3 WLR 918 2004 4 AER 617 FOLEY v SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LTD 2005 1 IR 88 2005/26/5290 2005 IEHC 14 BONNARD v PERRYMAN 1891 2 CH 269 REYNOLDS v MALOCC......
-
CC v AB
...the requirements of s.12(3) of the Human Rights Act and its interpretation by the House of Lords in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253. I should not grant an injunction unless I am satisfied that the Claimant is likely to obtain an order in similar terms following a trial. I can ......
-
Privilege, And This Time We Mean It
...of day. Footnotes 1 [2006] UKHL 44 2 [2001] 2 AC 127 3 [2004] UKHL 22; [2004] 2 AC 457 4 See, in particular, Cream Holdings v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44; [2005] 1 AC 253 5 In re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593 6 See eg Radio France v France (2005) 40 EHRR 706 7 Von Hannover v Germa......
-
Cleary Gottlieb Discusses Non-Disclosure Agreements — Are They Effective?
...Confidentiality (4th ed., 2020), p.135 [12] Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet [2009] EWHC 1456 (Ch) [13] Cream Holdings Ltd v Bannerjee [2004] UKHL 44 [14] ABC v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2329 [15] Ibid [16] Mionis v Democratic Press SA & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1194 [17] HRH T......
-
REVISITING THE LAW OF CONFIDENCE IN SINGAPORE AND A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TORT OF MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
...v Celltech Ltd [1982] FSR 92; and McKenna Breen Ltd v James [2002] 6 WLUK 190; 2002 WL 31422186. See also Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253 and Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Paula Huesca de Crean [2012] EWCA Civ 156; [2012] FSR 33. 319 PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd......
-
Invasion of Privacy/Misuse of Private Information
...v. CLA Verley Group Ltd. & Anr, [2005] EWHC 958 (QB) Campbell v. MGN, [2004] UKHL 22 Cream Holdings Ltd. v. Banerjee (House of Lords), [2004] UKHL 44 (HL) Wainwright & Anor v. Home Oice, [2003] UKHL 53 Grupo Torres SA and Ors v. Sheikh Fahad and Ors, [1999] EWHC 300 (Comm) Mahon v. Rahn & O......
-
Table of Cases
...Anor v. MGN Ltd & Ors, [2006] EWHC 1235 (QB) ...................................................... .400 Cream Holdings Ltd. v. Banerjee, [2004] UKHL 44 ......................................................... 400, 404 Crookes v. De Simone, 2007 BCCA 515 .........................................
-
Interlocutory Injunctions: General Principles
...International Ltd. v. South West Chicks (Warren) Ltd. , [1997] F.S.R. 276 (Ch.). 71 1998, c. 42. 72 Cream Holdings Ltd. v. Banerjee , [2004] 4 All E.R. 617 (H.L.). See also A. Keay, “Whither American Cyanamid ?: Interim Injunctions in the 21st Century” (2004) 23 C.J.Q. 132 at 144. Interlocu......