Holley & Ors v Smith [1997] EWCA Civ 2914 (4th December, 1997)

Holley & Ors v Smith [1997] EWCA Civ 2914 (4th December, 1997)

The rule in Bonnard v. Perryman applies to all defendants, regardless of motive, and interlocutory injunctions restraining publication of alleged libel should not be granted unless the plaintiff can show the defence of justification is plainly untrue. The defendant's motive to extract money does not take the case outside the general rule. On the evidence, the plaintiffs failed to show the allegations were manifestly untrue. The injunction was therefore discharged.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 2914
Parties
First Plaintiff: Mr Holley; Second Plaintiff: SD & R Trading Limited; Third Plaintiff: Henry Ansbacher & Co Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff: Ansbacher (Jersey) Ltd; Defendant: Mr Smyth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Blackmail, Discretionary Relief
Civil Procedure Defamation Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Freedom of Expression Blackmail Discretionary Relief

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Holley

First Plaintiff

SD & R Trading Limited

Second Plaintiff

Henry Ansbacher & Co Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Ansbacher (Jersey) Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff

Mr Smyth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman precludes interlocutory injunction where the defendant threatens defamation to extract money from the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's motive (pecuniary gain) is relevant to the grant of interlocutory relief in defamation cases.
  3. 3 Whether the threatened publication is manifestly untrue so as to justify interlocutory restraint.

Ratio Decidendi

The rule in Bonnard v. Perryman applies to all defendants, regardless of motive, and interlocutory injunctions restraining publication of alleged libel should not be granted unless the plaintiff can show the defence of justification is plainly untrue. The defendant's motive to extract money does not take the case outside the general rule. On the evidence, the plaintiffs failed to show the allegations were manifestly untrue. The injunction was therefore discharged.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction discharged.
  • Plaintiffs' cross-appeal dismissed.