The company parties were competitors. The claimant alleged slander and malicious falsehood. Tugendhat J considered and reviewed the law applicable to an application for an interim restraining injunction, and a final order granted at trial.
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 549 (QB)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Proctor v Bayley CA 1889
A final injunction was refused in a patent case because, although the defendant had been found to infringe, the court did not accept there was any basis to infer that there would be a continuance of the wrongful activity to justify a quia timet . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare QBD 29-Mar-2012
The claimant had obtained an order restricting the defendant from asserting any kind of insolvency in the claimant. The defendant now sought the strike out of the claim as an abuse of process. He said that any such disclosure had been on one . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452161