Holley, SD and R Trading Limited, Henry Ansbacher and Co Limited, Ansbacher (Jersey) Limited v Smith: CA 4 Dec 1997

The motive for a threatened publication, was not relevant, when considering whether to restrain publication beforehand. Sir Christopher Slade said: ‘I accept that the court may be left with a residual discretion to decline to apply the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman in exceptional circumstances. One exception, recognised in that decision itself, is the case where the court is satisfied that the defamatory statement is clearly untrue. In my judgment, however, that is a discretion which must be exercised in accordance with established principles.’
The motive for a threatened publication was not relevant when considering whether to restrain publication beforehand.


Auld LJ, Sir Christopher Slade


Times 20-Dec-1997, Gazette 14-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 2914, [1998] QB 726, [1998] 1 All ER 853




England and Wales


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 . .

Cited by:

CitedGreene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Media

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.143313