Jagwani v Alles [2019] EWHC 2887 (QB) (30 October 2019)

Jagwani v Alles [2019] EWHC 2887 (QB) (30 October 2019)

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct, consisting mainly of publication and social media commentary, reached the threshold of harassment or justified restriction of freedom of expression. The evidence did not show exceptional circumstances or a likelihood of success at trial as required by section 12(3) HRA. Accordingly, the interim injunction was refused.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2887
Parties
Claimant: Kabir Kumar Manohar Jagwani; Defendant: Poonam Joshi Alles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Defamation and Harassment Claim / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Harassment by Publication, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights
Civil Procedure Defamation Harassment Human Rights Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Harassment by Publication Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights

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

Parties

Kabir Kumar Manohar Jagwani

Claimant

Poonam Joshi Alles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Defamation and Harassment Claim / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is likely to establish at trial that continued publication by the defendant should not be allowed under section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication is justified in light of the right to freedom of expression

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct, consisting mainly of publication and social media commentary, reached the threshold of harassment or justified restriction of freedom of expression. The evidence did not show exceptional circumstances or a likelihood of success at trial as required by section 12(3) HRA. Accordingly, the interim injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Refusal of interim injunction restraining publication or further conduct by the defendant