Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 31 (Ch) |
| Date | 11 January 2001 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor.
Practice - interlocutory injunction - claimed interference with freedom of expression - threshold test
In cases where an interlocutory injunction might affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 introduced a marginally higher threshold test for the grant of an order than that previously applied by the court.
Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, so held allowing an application by the claimant, Imutran Ltd, for an injunction until trial or further order restraining the defendants, Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Daniel Louis Lyons, from misusing confidential information of the claimant or from infringing its copyright. The RSPCA intervened.
Section 12 of the 1998 Act provides: "(1) This section applies if the court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression…
"(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that the publication should not be allowed."
Mr Mark Warby for the claimant; Mr David Bean, QC, for the defendants; Mr Michael Tugendhat, QC, for the RSPCA.
THE VICE -CHANCELLOR said that relevant to both the issues of breach of confidence and infringement of copyright was the question of what was the proper approach of the court to an application for interim injunctions in which the right to freedom guaranteed by article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was material. That question depended on the proper construction and application of section 12 of the 1998 Act.
In American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon LtdELR ((1975) AC 396) the House of Lords held that an applicant for interlocutory relief had to show a "serious question to be tried" or "a real prospect of succeeding in his claim to a permanent injunction at trial".
That threshold rest was amplified in cases in which the grant or refusal of an interim injunction would have the practical effect of putting an end to the action.
In such a case the strength or otherwise of the claimant's case, in excess of the threshold, had to be brought into the balance in weighing the risk of injustice to either party by the grant or refusal of the injunction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harminder Bains and Others v Robert Moore and Others
...of expression. As many judges have remarked, including the Vice-Chancellor, a few months after that Act came into force, in Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd [2001] EWHC Ch 31 at para 18: "it must be borne in mind that the courts emphasised the importance of freedom of expression or speec......
-
SmithKline Beecham Plc v Apotex Europe Ltd
... ... The court must weigh one need against another and determine where 'the balance of convenience' lies." ... ...
-
Cream Holdings Ltd and Others v Banerjee and another
...for the court there to set the standard. 19 The next authority in point is the decision of Sir Andrew Morritt VC in Imutran Limited -v—Uncaged Campaigns Limited [2001] 2 All ER 385. Having regard to the dates respectively of the hearing and the judgment in that case, it is plain that the V......
-
Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company (a company incorporated in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another v Mr. Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and Others
...only leads to the question how much disclosure was required in the public interest and does not justify public disclosure: see Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd, [2001] 2 All ER 385 at para 20: "… the court will … consider how much disclosure the public interest requires; the fact that s......
-
MILKY WAY AND ANDROMEDA: PRIVACY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
...FSR 145. In Singapore, see Remus Innovation Forschungs-Und Abgasanlagen- Produktionsgesellschaft Mbh v Hong Boon Siong[1995] 2 SLR 148. 50 [2002] FSR 2. 51 Supra n 45, at [11]. But see Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee[2005] 1 AC 253, cited by the Court of Appeal in Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3),......