Merlin Entertainments LPC & Ors v Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB) (25 September 2014)

Merlin Entertainments LPC & Ors v Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB) (25 September 2014)

The claimants failed to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct, consisting mainly of mass emails and critical statements about safety at theme parks, crossed the threshold from robust criticism to oppressive and unacceptable harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There was insufficient evidence of alarm or distress caused to individuals, and the conduct did not meet the higher threshold required for interim relief under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The rule in Bonnard v Perryman remains applicable, and the court should be exceedingly slow to grant interim injunctions restraining publication where the defendant will seek to justify the statements at trial.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3036 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Merlin Entertainments LPC; Claimant: Merlin Attractions Operations Limited; Claimant: Chessington World Of Adventures Operations Limited; Claimant: Merlin Entertainments Group Limited; Claimant: Nicholas Varney; Defendant: Peter Cave
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Relief)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Article 10 ECHR
Civil Procedure Tort Human Rights Harassment Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Defamation Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merlin Entertainments LPC

Claimant

Merlin Attractions Operations Limited

Claimant

Chessington World Of Adventures Operations Limited

Claimant

Merlin Entertainments Group Limited

Claimant

Nicholas Varney

Claimant

Peter Cave

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (interim Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain alleged harassment where the conduct consists of statements the defendant seeks to justify at trial
  3. 3 Whether the claimants can aggregate conduct against multiple individuals to establish harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct, consisting mainly of mass emails and critical statements about safety at theme parks, crossed the threshold from robust criticism to oppressive and unacceptable harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There was insufficient evidence of alarm or distress caused to individuals, and the conduct did not meet the higher threshold required for interim relief under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The rule in Bonnard v Perryman remains applicable, and the court should be exceedingly slow to grant interim injunctions restraining publication where the defendant will seek to justify the statements at trial.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused