ZAM v CFW & Anor

Interim injunctions in defamation proceedings are rare, but may be granted where there is a prima facie case of libel, a continuing threat of publication, likely injury that damages cannot fully compensate, and no credible defence.

Publications may constitute harassment where the statutory ingredients are present and the conduct is unreasonable and oppressive. Anonymity may be justified where identification would frustrate the injunction, expose protected allegations, or undermine strong policy reasons against blackmail.

The claimant sought urgent interim relief against further publication of highly defamatory allegations made to his employers, family members and others. The communications were attributed to persons apparently acting for the defendants, who did not appear or present a substantive defence.

The application was initially heard without notice. The defendants were subsequently served and given an opportunity to attend the return hearing, but did not do so. The issues were whether interim restraint was justified, whether the publications could constitute harassment, and whether anonymity should continue.

1. The court continued the injunction until trial or further order. Interim injunctions in defamation claims are rare, but the jurisdiction exists in an appropriate case.

2. The claimant established a prima facie case of libel. There was a continuing threat of publication, further publication would cause injury not fully compensable in damages, and the defendants had advanced no credible defence. The fax sent to the court contained bare assertions and provided no sufficient basis for a defence capable of succeeding at trial. Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 and Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972 supported relief.

3. There was also a clear basis for relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Publications are capable in principle of constituting harassment. The repeated publications and threats provided strong grounds for concluding that the conduct was unreasonable and oppressive.

4. The court had jurisdiction to order anonymity under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4). Publication of the allegations could frustrate the injunction. In circumstances suggesting an attempt at blackmail, there were strong policy reasons for anonymising both parties. The public interest in open justice was better served by anonymity while disclosing limited necessary detail, consistently with JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42.

5. The orders were not findings of fact against the absent defendants and remained subject to any findings at trial. The defendants were given permission to apply to vary or discharge the injunction. They were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs.

First-instance decision. An injunction granted on 25 February 2011 was continued after the return hearing on 3 March 2011.