Power Places Tours Inc & Ors v Free Spirit & Anor

Interim injunctive relief may be granted where the claimant shows a sufficiently strong case and the order best preserves the balance of justice pending trial. Where the order restricts freedom of expression, Human Rights Act 1998, section 12 requires a strong likelihood that final relief preventing publication will be obtained. Mandatory interim orders require particular caution: their terms must be clear, practicable and enforceable. A recent settlement agreement may properly be enforced by injunction where apparent breaches are highly likely to be established and the order protects vested contractual rights. A harassment injunction may nevertheless require careful consideration of applicable law where the claimants and harm are connected with another country.

The claimants sought interim relief in two related actions. The first action concerned alleged breaches by Free Spirit of a detailed settlement agreement, made in the form of a Tomlin order, resolving defamation proceedings. The second action was brought by Theresa and Toby Weiss concerning repeated direct emails said to constitute harassment.

The defendants had notice of the applications but did not attend. The court considered enforcement of the settlement, restrictions on internet publications, protection against direct communications, Article 10 rights, and the possible application of English or Colorado law to the harassment claim.

1. Interim relief. The court applied the general American Cyanamid principle. It was unnecessary to determine that the claimants would succeed at trial; the question was whether they had a sufficiently strong case and whether the proposed order best preserved the balance of justice pending trial.
2. Freedom of expression. Because the relief substantially restricted Article 10 rights, section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the court to be satisfied that the claimants were likely to obtain final relief preventing the relevant publications. That threshold was met in relation to the settlement agreement.
3. Settlement agreement. The agreement was freely signed only two months earlier. The evidence showed apparent breaches of both its negative restraints and positive take-down obligations, with no substantive answer advanced. Injunctions carrying the agreement into effect were therefore justified to protect the claimants’ vested contractual rights. Mandatory provisions were framed as clearly, simply and practicably as possible.
4. Harassment claim. The emails disclosed a protracted course of conduct, conduct calculated to cause alarm and distress, and conduct which appeared neither reasonable nor justifiable nor undertaken for a protected purpose under the Protection from Harassment Act. The court nevertheless recognised an unresolved choice-of-law issue because the claimants lived in Colorado and suffered the alleged harm there. On the evidence, English law was more likely than not to apply, and the interim order was justified on the balance of convenience and justice.
5. Interim injunctions were granted in both actions. The defendants were ordered to pay the application costs, subject to liberty to apply to discharge or vary the orders, and £5,000 was ordered in each action as an interim payment on account of costs.