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 primarily of publication and social media commentary, reached the necessary threshold of seriousness to constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or justified the restriction of the defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression by way of interim injunction. The evidence did not show that the claimant was likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed as required by section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2887 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Kabir Kumar Manohar Jagwani; Defendant: Poonam Joshi Alles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (defamation and Harassment) / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Harassment, Article 10 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998
Civil Procedure Defamation Harassment Human Rights Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +2 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 10 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 (defamation and Harassment) / Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from further alleged harassment and defamatory publication
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for interim relief under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is met
  3. 3 Whether the conduct complained of amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct, consisting primarily of publication and social media commentary, reached the necessary threshold of seriousness to constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or justified the restriction of the defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression by way of interim injunction. The evidence did not show that the claimant was likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed as required by section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction application refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction against the defendant is refused.