Cream Holdings Ltd. & Ors v Banerjee & Anor

Cream Holdings Ltd. & Ors v Banerjee & Anor

The correct test under s12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is whether the applicant has a real prospect of success at trial, not whether success is more likely than not. The judge at first instance applied the correct test and was entitled to grant the interim injunction restraining publication. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Cream Holdings Limited & Others; Appellant/defendant: Chumki Banerjee; Appellant/defendant: The Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Breach of Confidence, Prior Restraint, Interpretation of 'likely' Under S12(3) Human Rights Act 1998
Media Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Breach of Confidence Prior Restraint Interpretation of 'likely' Under S12(3) Human Rights Act 1998

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cream Holdings Limited & Others

Claimants/respondents

Chumki Banerjee

Appellant/defendant

The Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'likely' in section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for granting interim injunctions restraining publication?
  2. 2 Did the judge at first instance apply the correct legal test under s12(3)?
  3. 3 Should the interim injunction restraining publication be upheld or discharged?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct test under s12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is whether the applicant has a real prospect of success at trial, not whether success is more likely than not. The judge at first instance applied the correct test and was entitled to grant the interim injunction restraining publication. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay respondents’ costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment
  • Interim payment of £20,000 on account of costs pending detailed assessment