温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/workspace-commerce-ltd-ors-v-filis
点击访问原文链接

Workspace Commerce Ltd & ors v Filis - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Workspace Commerce Ltd & ors v Filis - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Workspace Commerce Ltd & ors v Filis Reference: [2018] EWHC 2923 (QB)

Court: High Court, Queen’s Bench Division

Judge: Nicklin J

Date of judgment: 20 Aug 2018 Summary: Injunction - Bonnard v Perryman - Libel - Harassment - s.12 Human Rights Act

Download: Download this judgment

Instructing Solicitors: Child & Child for Cs; Clintons for D

Facts C1 and C2 were companies in which C3 was now a director. D claimed to still be the rightful director of C1 and C2, and that the paperwork removing him and appointing C3 involved forged version’s of D’s signature. D published allegations of fraud in emails and on Facebook, sought to divert a payment to the company to himself, and tried to access the offices of the company. Cs sought an interim injunction on the basis of draft pleadings alleging libel, malicious falsehood, misuse of confidential information, unlawful interference in a business, trespass and harassment. D intimated in his witness statement an intention to defend the libel claim under s.2 Defamation Act 2013.

Issue (1) To what extent did s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 and/or the rule in Bonnard v Perryman apply to each cause of action?

(2) Should the interim injunction be granted in each/any cause of action?

Held (1) All causes of action except trespass engaged s.12 Human Rights Act 1998. The defamation and malicious falsehood claims engaged Bonnard v Perryman, and had it been necessary – to avoid its circumvention – the rule would have applied to the other causes of action affecting publication as well.

(2) No – the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applied given D’s witness statement that he would seek to prove his allegations to be true. The outcome of the misuse of confidential information and unlawful interference claims would likely follow the truth or falsity of the inpugned statements. There was insufficient threat of any prospective trespass to grant and injunction. None of the behaviour to date was of sufficient seriousness to surpass the high threshold for harassment.

Comment A somewhat rare case of the rule in Bonnard v Perryman being deployed to defeat an interim injunction, and its intersection with non-defamation causes of action under the ‘nub’ rule.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* PhoneThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录