Cream Holdings Ltd. & Ors v Banerjee & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 103 (13 February 2003)

Cream Holdings Ltd. & Ors v Banerjee & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 103 (13 February 2003)

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 below applied the correct test and was entitled to grant the interlocutory injunction restraining publication, given the evidence and the balance of competing rights.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 103
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Cream Holdings Limited & Others; Appellants/defendants: Chumki Banerjee; Appellants/defendants: The Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction (chancery Division, High Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prior Restraint, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Confidential Information, Interpretation of 'likely' in Human Rights Act 1998 S12(3)
Media Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Prior Restraint Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Confidential Information Interpretation of 'likely' in Human Rights Act 1998 S12(3)

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cream Holdings Limited & Others

Claimants/respondents

Chumki Banerjee

Appellants/defendants

The Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Limited

Appellants/defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction (chancery Division, High Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'likely' in s12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for granting prior restraint on publication?
  2. 2 Did the judge below apply the correct legal test under s12(3)?
  3. 3 Was the grant of an interlocutory injunction justified on the facts?

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 below applied the correct test and was entitled to grant the interlocutory injunction restraining publication, given the evidence and the balance of competing rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction restraining publication of confidential information to remain in force until trial