Debt Free Direct Ltd., R (on the application of) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1337 (Admin) (15 May 2007)

Debt Free Direct Ltd., R (on the application of) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1337 (Admin) (15 May 2007)

The injunction was discharged and permission for judicial review refused because (1) there was material non-disclosure by the claimant in the without notice application, (2) there were no exceptional circumstances justifying restraint of publication by a public regulatory body, and (3) an adequate alternative remedy existed in the form of the Independent Review process.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1337 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Debt Free Direct Limited; Defendant: Advertising Standards Authority Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Continuation of Interim Injunction and Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Injunction discharged; permission to apply for judicial review refused; costs awarded to defendant on indemnity basis, summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Against Regulatory Bodies, Judicial Review Procedure, Disclosure Obligations, Alternative Remedies, Freedom of Expression, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Administrative Law Media Law Injunctions Against Regulatory Bodies Judicial Review Procedure Disclosure Obligations Alternative Remedies Freedom of Expression Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debt Free Direct Limited

Claimant

Advertising Standards Authority Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Continuation of Interim Injunction and Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to a continuation of the interim injunction restraining publication of the ASA adjudication
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether permission to apply for judicial review should be granted given the availability of an alternative remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged and permission for judicial review refused because (1) there was material non-disclosure by the claimant in the without notice application, (2) there were no exceptional circumstances justifying restraint of publication by a public regulatory body, and (3) an adequate alternative remedy existed in the form of the Independent Review process.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; permission to apply for judicial review refused; costs awarded to defendant on indemnity basis, summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Existing injunction formally discharged
  • Further application for injunction refused