Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited: CA 13 Feb 2003

The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to restrict publication. The court below held the test is not that of the balance of probabilities but rather that of a real prospect of success, convincingly established.
Held: The judge’s test was correct, and in this case, the claimant’s had successfully met that test. The test is that of a ‘a real prospect of success, convincingly established’ for the claimant at trial, and ‘. . the judge will have to be satisfied that there is no obvious reason why the claim should not succeed’

Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Simon Brown Lady Justice Arden
[2003] EWCA Civ 103, Gazette 17-Apr-2003, [2003] Ch 650, [2003] 3 WLR 999, [2003] 2 All ER 318, [2003] EMLR 16, [2003] HRLR 18
Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
England and Wales
CitedA v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) CA 11-Mar-2002
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife.
Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and . .
CitedTheakston v MGN Ltd QBD 14-Feb-2002
The claimant, a celebrity sought to restrain publication by the defendant of information about his sex life, consisting of pictures of him in a brothel. The court considered the test for the grant of an injunction to restrain publication under the . .
CitedDouglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
CitedRegina v Wills CACD 1990
The words of a statute must be construed in their context but the interpretation of ‘likely’ [in Sheppard] seems very strained. If it only excludes what is ‘highly unlikely’ it includes what is merely ‘unlikely’; ie, the result is ‘likely’ to occur . .
CitedIn re Harris Simons Construction Limited ChD 1989
The section gives the court jurisdiction to make an administration order if it ‘(a) is satisfied that a company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts’ and ‘(b) considers that the making of an order . . would be likely to achieve’ one or . .
CitedBailey v Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited CA 1984
The court considered the meaning of the word likely in the section: ‘A person shall not be employed to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him.’
Held: ‘likely’ in that context meant ‘more probable than . .
CitedRegina v Sheppard HL 1981
The section made it an offence for anyone having care of a child to wilfully neglect the child ‘in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.
Held: The section speaks of an act or omission that is ‘likely’ to . .
CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
CitedGunning v United Liverpool Hospitals’ Board of Governors CA 1973
With regard to pre-action disclosure and the question of whether a party was ‘likely’ to be a party to subsequent proceedings, ‘likely’ must be given its more extended and open meaning because otherwise one of the fundamental purposes of the statute . .
CitedBonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
CitedVenables and Thompson v News Group International, Associated Newspapers Ltd, MGN Ltd QBD 4-Dec-2001
An order had been made requiring all newspapers not to publish anything which might lead to the identification of the claimants or their whereabouts. The defendant newspaper published information as to their last known whereabouts. They argued that . .
CitedAl-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd CA 1-Nov-2001
The media’s right to freedom of expression, particularly in the field of political discussion ‘is of a higher order’ than ‘the right of an individual to his good reputation.’ The majority upheld an appeal against a trial judge’s ruling that the . .
CitedReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Appeal fromCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited 5-Jul-2002
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further publication by the second defendants of confidential papers taken from them by the first defendant on her dismissal.
Held: An interlocutory injunction was granted prohibiting the defendants . .
CitedFrancome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 1984
The defendant had acquired illegal tapes of telephone conversations which it said implicated the plaintiff. He sought to restrain publication of the material pending forthcoming discliplinary charges at the Jockey Club.
Held: The court had to . .
CitedImutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another ChD 11-Jan-2001
The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The . .

Cited by:
CitedTillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television, Shine Limited ChD 18-May-2004
The claimant sought an injunction to restrain the defendants broadcasting a film, claiming that it contained confidential material. A journalist working undercover sought to reveal what he said were unhealthy practices in the claimant’s meat . .
Appeal fromCream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
CitedBains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179032