Francotyp-Postalia Ltd v The Mailing Room Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 1167 (18 November 2015)

Francotyp-Postalia Ltd v The Mailing Room Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 1167 (18 November 2015)

The court held that the defendants' proposed undertakings were sufficient to protect the claimant pending trial, and that the claimant was not likely to establish at trial that broader injunctive relief should be granted. The statements the claimant sought to restrain were either arguable at trial, not clearly incorrect, or not sufficiently defined to justify an injunction.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1167
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Francotyp-Postalia Limited; Defendants/appellants: The Mailing Room Limited (formerly FP Mailing (North West) Limited) & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory (appeal Against Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Article 10 ECHR, Disclosure
Tort Defamation Commercial Law Malicious Falsehood Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR Disclosure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francotyp-Postalia Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Mailing Room Limited (formerly FP Mailing (North West) Limited) & Ors

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory (appeal Against Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction granted against the defendants was too wide in scope
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to broader injunctive relief than accepted by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the statements sought to be restrained were justifiable or arguable at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants' proposed undertakings were sufficient to protect the claimant pending trial, and that the claimant was not likely to establish at trial that broader injunctive relief should be granted. The statements the claimant sought to restrain were either arguable at trial, not clearly incorrect, or not sufficiently defined to justify an injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Interim injunction narrowed to the terms accepted by the defendants
  • Claimant's request for broader injunctive relief rejected