Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘However, in this case the plaintiffs rely on the decision . . in Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v. Page . . which shows that, where the cause of action is founded on conspiracy to injure, the court can grant an injunction restraining publication.
It is the plaintiffs’ case here that they have an arguable case that the sole or paramount intention of Mr. Lazar and Cityguide operating in concert is to injure the plaintiffs . .
However, on the other side I must take account of the fact of the intemperate language such as I have quoted, the element of witchhunt which comes into the matter, the extreme broadcasting of these allegations. The manifest dislike which Mr. Lazar entertains for Mr. Singh may well have come – although of course I cannot tell at this stage – from a position which seems to have emerged towards the end of 1989 in which Mr.Lazar or those associated with him appear to have wished to obtain either a stake in or control of Femis. There are documents showing Mr.Lazar holding himself out as being in that position. Mr Singh in fact obtained control. In addition the unhappy episode in which Mr. Singh covertly joined Femis at a time when he was still ostensibly acting for Cityguide cannot have improved relations.
There are therefore substantial grounds on which it can be argued that there was a major malicious motive in Mr. Lazar’s conduct. Though I have substantial doubts whether at trial the plaintiffs will establish that the sole or paramount purpose of what Mr Lazar did was simply to injure without lawful justification, I marginally reach the view that there is an arguable case on the point’.
Judges:
Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C
Citations:
[1991] Ch. 391
Citing:
Cited – Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Limited v Page CA 1987
The plaintiff had contracted exclusively to supply to the defendants owners of petrol stations. On arrears arising, the plaintiff discontinued deliveries save on cash on delivery and direct debit terms. The defendants obtained supplies from another . .
Cited by:
Cited – Caborn-Waterfield v Gold and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471926