England and Wales Case Law

Nikoletta Read v Claudio di Giovanni & Ors

The claimant failed to meet the threshold for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) HRA for misuse of private information, libel, malicious falsehood, and harassment due to insufficient evidence of serious harm, lack of urgency, and delay. The bulk of any damage had already occurred, and there was no real risk of further harm pending trial. Therefore, the application for an interim injunction was refused.

Source excerpt

• Interim injunctions
• Libel
• Misuse of private information
• Malicious falsehood
• Harassment
• Delay

Read case analysis

Justin Oliver Zinda v Ark Schools & Anor

The claimant failed to establish the existence of new evidence, conscious and deliberate dishonesty, or materiality as required to set aside the prior judgments for fraud. The claims were totally without merit, time-barred, and abusive, warranting summary judgment and strike out against both defendants.

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent procurement of judgment
• Strike out
• Summary judgment
• Civil restraint orders
• Limitation period
• Breach of contract

Read case analysis

Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Limited

The court decided preliminary issues on meaning in a defamation claim over emails alleging a marketing rival had mis-sold advertising space and acted fraudulently.

• Libel
• Malicious falsehood
• Unlawful interference with economic interests
• Procuring breach of contract
• Meaning of publications
• Fact vs opinion

Read case analysis

Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Ltd & Ors

Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1085 (KB) (08 May 2026)

Preliminary defamation issues over emails alleging a rival falsely sold advertising space on screens it did not own.

• Libel
• Malicious falsehood
• Unlawful interference with economic interests
• Procuring breach of contract
• Meaning of publications
• Fact vs opinion

Read case analysis

Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley MBE v Times Media Limited

The essential purpose of the interim injunction application was to protect the claimant's reputation, so the defamation rule applied. The claimant failed to show the statements were unarguably defamatory or that there were no grounds for a defence. The Norwich Pharmacal order was refused because the claimant had not established necessity, having not taken reasonable steps to confirm the source, and the strong protection of journalistic sources should not be overridden.

Source excerpt

• Interim injunctions
• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Defamation
• Malicious falsehood

Read case analysis

Tooley v Times Media Ltd

Tooley v Times Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 675 (KB) (23 March 2026)

The High Court refused an interim injunction and a Norwich Pharmacal order in a media dispute, holding the applications were driven by reputational harm and lacking necessity.

• Interim injunctions
• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Defamation
• Malicious falsehood

Read case analysis

Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor

Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 551 (KB) (11 March 2026)

The High Court struck out parts of a defamation and malicious falsehood claim, rejected an apology plea, and granted summary judgment on malicious falsehood.

• Libel
• Malicious falsehood
• Strike-out
• Summary judgment
• Pleading standards
• Malice

Read case analysis

Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey & Ors

Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 215 (04 March 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that an action is brought for limitation purposes when the claim form reaches the court office, and struck out a backdating order.

• Limitation period
• Court fees
• Relief from sanctions
• Defamation
• Malicious falsehood
• Injunctive relief

Read case analysis

Read v Claudio di Giovanni & Ors

Read v Claudio di Giovanni & Ors [2026] EWHC 243 (KB) (09 February 2026)

High Court refused an interim injunction in a claim over alleged blackmail, defamation, privacy misuse and harassment, finding the threshold tests unmet and delay significant.

• Interim injunctions
• Libel
• Malicious falsehood
• Misuse of private information
• Harassment
• Threshold for injunctive relief

Read case analysis

CJ Jones Solicitors LLP v John Sapsford

The High Court decided a preliminary issue in a defamation claim over emails alleging CJ Jones Solicitors sent fraudulent charges.

• Meaning of statements
• Defamatory nature
• Fact vs opinion
• Malicious falsehood
• Defamation
• Fact-vs-opinion

Read case analysis