Tinkler & Anor v Elliott [2012] EWHC 600 (QB) (15 March 2012)

Tinkler & Anor v Elliott [2012] EWHC 600 (QB) (15 March 2012)

The Defendant satisfied the threshold for setting aside the judgment under CPR 39.3(5), particularly as the injunctive relief granted was arguably too wide, vague, and disproportionate, failed to reflect the contractual proviso, and raised unresolved issues of public interest and freedom of expression. The Defendant's arguments regarding the operation of the proviso and the proportionality of the injunction were reasonably arguable and merited a full hearing.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 600 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: William Andrew Tinkler; Claimant: WA Developments International Limited; Defendant: Peter Elliott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3(5)
Outcome
Application to set aside judgment granted
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Civil Restraint Orders, Public Interest Disclosure, Duress, Proportionality of Injunctive Relief
Civil Procedure Contract Law Defamation Human Rights Setting Aside Default Judgment Injunctions Freedom of Expression Enforcement of Settlement Agreements +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Andrew Tinkler

Claimant

WA Developments International Limited

Claimant

Peter Elliott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Judgment Under CPR 39.3(5)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant satisfied the criteria under CPR 39.3(5) to set aside the judgment given in his absence
  2. 2 Whether the permanent injunction granted was too wide, vague, or disproportionate, particularly in light of Article 10 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the contractual undertaking and its proviso were properly reflected in the injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant satisfied the threshold for setting aside the judgment under CPR 39.3(5), particularly as the injunctive relief granted was arguably too wide, vague, and disproportionate, failed to reflect the contractual proviso, and raised unresolved issues of public interest and freedom of expression. The Defendant's arguments regarding the operation of the proviso and the proportionality of the injunction were reasonably arguable and merited a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside judgment granted

Orders

  • Judgment of 15 March 2010 set aside
  • Permanent injunction and general civil restraint order set aside