Tinkler & Anor v Elliott

Tinkler & Anor v Elliott

The defendant satisfied the CPR r 39.3(5) criteria: he had a reasonable prospect of success on the merits, a good reason for not attending trial due to mental health, and acted promptly in the circumstances. The permanent injunction was overbroad, vague, and did not reflect the contractual bargain, particularly the proviso. The restriction on freedom of expression was disproportionate. Issues regarding duress and protected disclosure under PIDA raised arguable defences. Judgment and counterclaim granted in the defendant's absence were set aside.

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
Outcome
Judgment and counterclaim set aside; matter to proceed to trial; GCRO to be reconsidered.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Settlement Agreements, Freedom of Expression, Civil Restraint Orders, Protected Disclosures, Duress, Public Interest Disclosure
Contract Defamation Employment Human Rights Injunctions Settlement Agreements Freedom of Expression Civil Restraint Orders +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant satisfied CPR r 39.3(5) criteria for setting aside judgment
  2. 2 Whether the permanent injunction reflected the contractual bargain and was enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the injunction disproportionately restricted freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant satisfied the CPR r 39.3(5) criteria: he had a reasonable prospect of success on the merits, a good reason for not attending trial due to mental health, and acted promptly in the circumstances. The permanent injunction was overbroad, vague, and did not reflect the contractual bargain, particularly the proviso. The restriction on freedom of expression was disproportionate. Issues regarding duress and protected disclosure under PIDA raised arguable defences. Judgment and counterclaim granted in the defendant's absence were set aside.

Court Disposition

Judgment and counterclaim set aside; matter to proceed to trial; GCRO to be reconsidered.

Orders

  • Judgment and counterclaim granted in defendant's absence set aside
  • Matter to be listed for further directions before a High Court Judge or deputy