Cases

Neocleous v Jones, Edwin Coe LLP & ors v Jones

Held

(1) The Defendant’s cross applications were dismissed. There was no evidence of misconduct to justify the granting of an injunction or the making of a civil restraint order against N or his firm. Similarly, there were no grounds on which N's claim could be struck out.

(2) Injunctions were granted on the Claimants' applications. The Defendant’s multiple threats and communications undoubtedly fulfilled the requirement for a course of conduct under the Act, and some of the Defendant’s threats made clear that the intention was to cause maximum anxiety, inconvenience and commercial damage to the Claimants and their clients. The requirements set out in Cream Holdings v Banerjee  [2005] 1 AC 253 for the grant of injunctive relief, in a case which might engage the Defendant's right to freedom of expression, were satisfied. This was not a case where the libel rule against prior restraint was applicable, since the proceedings were not concerned so much with the protection of reputation, but rather with the need to protect various persons or classes of persons from harassment.

Also