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 have not established that the defendant's conduct amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The evidence does not show that the mass emails or other communications caused alarm or distress sufficient to cross the threshold for harassment, especially where recipients could unsubscribe and there is limited evidence of actual distress. The court must be exceedingly slow to grant interim injunctions restraining publication where the defendant will seek to justify the statements at trial, and the claimants have not shown a likelihood of success as required by section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The relief sought is also overbroad...

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3036
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
Tort Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure 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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 rule in Bonnard v Perryman precludes interim relief in harassment claims involving potentially defamatory statements

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have not established that the defendant's conduct amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The evidence does not show that the mass emails or other communications caused alarm or distress sufficient to cross the threshold for harassment, especially where recipients could unsubscribe and there is limited evidence of actual distress. The court must be exceedingly slow to grant interim injunctions restraining publication where the defendant will seek to justify the statements at trial, and the claimants have not shown a likelihood of success as required by section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The relief sought is also overbroad...

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused