Martin v Channel Four Television Corporation & Ors

An interim remedy cannot ordinarily be granted before proceedings are issued. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 25.2(2)(b), the court has jurisdiction to grant pre-action relief only where the matter is urgent or such relief is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice. The requirement is jurisdictional, not merely discretionary. A present threat or reasonable apprehension of unlawful conduct is also required for an injunction. Where those conditions are absent, the application must be refused. If the jurisdictional and factual hurdles are otherwise overcome, a temporary injunction may be available under s 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to preserve the position while disputed facts are determined.

Mr Noel Martin applied for an interim injunction restraining Channel Four Television Corporation, Century Films Ltd and Estephan Wagner from broadcasting or otherwise using a documentary film made after filming at his home. He alleged that filming had occurred pursuant to an agreement giving him editorial control, and relied alternatively on privacy rights. No proceedings had been issued. The respondents had no current intention to broadcast, had offered advance notice if that changed, and had offered to edit the passages objected to by Mr Martin. The central questions were whether the court had jurisdiction to grant pre-action relief and, if so, whether an injunction was justified.

1. The application was refused. No proceedings had been issued, and the conditions in CPR 25.2(2)(b) were not satisfied. The matter was not urgent, and pre-action relief was not otherwise necessary in the interests of justice. This was a question of jurisdiction rather than discretion.
2. There was no present intention to broadcast the film and no threat or reasonable apprehension that unlawful conduct was about to occur. The respondents’ undertaking to give reasonable, ultimately 14 days’, notice of any change in position provided an opportunity for a properly constituted application if circumstances changed.
3. The disputed questions whether Mr Martin consented to filming and whether he retained contractual editorial control could not be finally resolved on written evidence. The respondents’ willingness to edit the two disputed passages and show the results to him was a reasonable stance and did not amount to acceptance of any contractual right of control.
4. Had the jurisdictional and factual hurdles been overcome, an interim injunction might have been granted to hold the ring while the facts were established. The judge considered that the case would fall within an exception to the likelihood-of-success approach under s 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, identified by Lord Nicholls in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253 at [22]. That observation was unnecessary to the result because the application failed on jurisdiction and the absence of any imminent threat.

The application was therefore refused.