(1) An interim injunction should not be granted.
As D’s right of freedom of expression was engaged, the test at the interim injunction stage was s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 rather than American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd  AC 396. On the evidence as it stood C had not shown that he was likely to succeed in his claim at trial, and so had not met the test under s.12.
The emails did not cross the line from unattractive, even unreasonable, conduct to that of oppressive and unacceptable. The distress caused was largely due to the content of the emails rather than the manner and frequency of delivery. The impact on C did not go beyond annoyance and distress, and appeared to be largely caused by what D had said to third parties, not the manner in which he had said it. While some emails contained language suggestive of threats, these lacked clarity and consistence and had never been acted upon. The underlying theme of the emails was to say to C and Spotify that if they did not disclose information to the market and the regulators, D would. This was not blackmail as it lacked a demand for something to which the person is not entitled.
D may have an arguable defence that the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. This would be a matter to be determined at trial.
Injunctive relief should also be refused on applying the defamation rule, as the ‘nub’ of C’s complaint was one of defamation being advanced under the guise of a harassment claim.
(2) The anonymity order should be discharged.
The claim was one for harassment, not privacy, and it was not in the category of ‘blackmail harassment’. The only ‘threat’ made by D was to disclose details of C’s previous convictions which C himself had generally made public in the previous year. The administration of justice would not be frustrated by C being identified and the proceedings taking place in open court.
Insofar as private or confidential information was raised in the evidence this may justify a more limited and targeted order withholding that information from proceedings in open court, together with a reporting restrictions order under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In the instant case, the hearing of the injunction took place in private and these private details had not been mentioned in open court or in the judgment.