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

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

The Defendant satisfies the threshold for a reasonable prospect of success in defending the claim and challenging the injunction, given arguable defences regarding the operation of the proviso, proportionality, and public interest. The permanent injunction granted was overly wide and vague, failing to reflect the contractual bargain and unjustifiably fettering the Defendant's right to freedom of expression. The Defendant is permitted to argue duress and other defences at trial. Judgment set aside under CPR 39.3(5).

Citation
[2012] EWHC 600
Parties
Claimant: William Andrew Tinkler; Claimant: WA Developments International Limited; Defendant: Peter Elliott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Judgment / Post Judgment, Application to Set Aside Under CPR 39.3(5)
Outcome
judgment set aside; Defendant permitted to defend claim and counterclaim
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Settlement Agreements, Freedom of Expression, Civil Restraint Orders, Injunctive Relief, Public Interest Disclosure, Duress, Proportionality Under Article 10 ECHR
Contract Law Defamation Injunctions Civil Procedure Human Rights Enforcement of Settlement Agreements Freedom of Expression Civil Restraint Orders +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 6 Authorities cited 12 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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant meets the criteria under CPR 39.3(5) to set aside judgment
  2. 2 Whether the permanent injunction granted was enforceable and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was bound by the undertaking given the operation of the proviso

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant satisfies the threshold for a reasonable prospect of success in defending the claim and challenging the injunction, given arguable defences regarding the operation of the proviso, proportionality, and public interest. The permanent injunction granted was overly wide and vague, failing to reflect the contractual bargain and unjustifiably fettering the Defendant's right to freedom of expression. The Defendant is permitted to argue duress and other defences at trial. Judgment set aside under CPR 39.3(5).

Court Disposition

judgment set aside; Defendant permitted to defend claim and counterclaim

Orders

  • Judgment of 15 March 2010 set aside under CPR 39.3(5)
  • Permanent injunction against Defendant set aside