Farrall v Kordowski

Interim injunctions in defamation proceedings are rare, but the court has jurisdiction to grant one under Human Rights Act 1998 section 12 where the evidence justifies it. The relevant considerations include a prima facie case of libel, a continuing threat of publication or further publication, and injury which damages cannot adequately compensate. The absence of any stated defence, such as justification, may support the conclusion that publication should not be allowed. An interim order remains subject to findings at trial and to the defendant’s ability to apply for variation or discharge.

The claimant, a solicitor, sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing allegedly defamatory statements about her on a website. The statements criticised her competence and conduct, identified her by name and firm, and were said to be entirely false. The defendant had been served with the proceedings and application but neither appeared nor made representations. By the hearing, the material had disappeared from the website, but the claimant had received no assurance that it would not be republished. The central issue was whether the evidence justified interim restraint in a defamation claim.

1. Interim injunction jurisdiction. Although such injunctions are rare in defamation proceedings, the court has jurisdiction to grant relief under Human Rights Act 1998 section 12 in an appropriate case.
2. Applicable considerations. The claimant established a prima facie case of libel. The words were plainly defamatory, and the evidence supported a continuing threat of publication or further publication, despite the temporary removal of the website entry. If republished, the claimant would suffer injury which could not be fully compensated by damages.
3. Absence of defence. The defendant had given no indication that he relied on justification or any other defence. On the information before the court, the claimant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
4. Limited interim effect. The order prohibited publication or further publication of the complained-of words and similar defamatory words. It was not a final finding of fact against the absent defendant. The order remained subject to any findings at trial, and the defendant was permitted to apply to vary or discharge it. The defendant was also ordered to make a payment on account of costs.