Privacy, harassment and defamation injunctions
What is an injunction?
An injunction is a civil court order that prohibits a person from doing a specific act, and/or requires them to do something. In a media law context, injunctions are most often granted to prevent the publication of private, confidential, defamatory and/or inaccurate information or to require the removal of online content. In recent years injunctions have also increasingly been granted to prevent harassment. If an injunction is disobeyed this can amount to contempt of court, which can result in the wrongdoer being imprisoned, fined or having their assets seized.
There are two types of injunctions: interim injunctions and final injunctions. Interim injunctions are sought at the start of a legal claim and last until trial or further order (see below). Final injunctions may be granted at the conclusion of a claim (if a claim succeeds). Final injunctions may be permanent or time-limited.
How can I apply for an injunction?
Injunctions are not granted lightly by the courts. They are draconian measures. Anyone seeking an injunction needs to:-
a. Have a good legal claim (e.g. for the misuse of private information, breach of confidence, breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’)/Data Protection Act 2018, harassment, defamation and/or malicious falsehood).
b. Be able to persuade the court that an injunction is necessary to prevent further wrongdoing (and/or is required to remedy wrongdoing)
c. Be in a position to fund a claim (i.e. pay their lawyers) through to trial, with much of the cost frontloaded if an interim injunction is sought. Typically, £10-15,000 will be needed immediately. Claims that go all the way to trial may cost in excess of £100,000 plus vat.
d. Be sure that the defendant will be able to pay any costs order or accept that they may not recover their legal costs
What if I don’t want to sue for compensation and l just want an injunction?
Unfortunately, an injunction is not a “standalone remedy”. You still need to sue the defendant. However, the court can impose an interim injunction at the start of the case. Cases will often settle at this point (or default judgment can be obtained if the defendant does not engage in the proceedings), but this can never be assumed. The cost of taking a claim to trial can be considerable and if you lose or abandon a claim you will also normally be ordered to pay your opponent’s legal costs. Thus, seeking an injunction involves serious financial commitment and some financial risk. It is certainly not a course of action which should be taken on a whim or out of principle alone.
What is an interim injunction?
An interim injunction is a temporary injunction that (ordinarily) stays in force to trial (normally around 12-18 months after a claim has been issued). If the claim succeeds at trial the court can grant a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction cannot be granted unless/until the claim succeeds.
Interim injunctions for pure defamation claims are very rare as “the law of prior restraint” normally prohibits them where a respondent intends to defend a claim at trial.
What will the court consider in deciding whether to grant an interim injunction?
In all cases the court will need to be satisfied there is a good arguable claim and an injunction is necessary. In publication cases, the Court needs to be satisfied that an injunction would likely be granted following trial. In harassment cases, the Court determines where the “balance of convenience” lies: by weighing up the likely damage to the applicant if an injunction is not granted, as against the inconvenience to the applicant if it is.
An injunction is a discretionary remedy, with the judge deciding whether one is appropriate or not. Where there has been delay in seeking an interim injunction this may be a ground for refusal.
Can I seek an urgent injunction?
Yes, depending on the circumstances. The Civil Procedure Rules normally requires three ‘clear days” notice to be given to the defendant. This is to allow them time to prepare their defence and instruct lawyers. However, if the matter is urgent an interim injunction can be sought on a ‘without notice’ or ‘ex parte’ basis, sometimes even outside normal working hours or at the weekend. This might be the case where publication or disclosure is imminent, e.g. if something is going to be published in the Sunday papers. With an urgent injunction, there will always be a second hearing a week or so later (a ‘return date’) so the court can decide whether the interim injunction should stay in force after the respondent has had a chance to seek legal advice.
Urgent injunction applications are quite rare in practice. The Court will be unimpressed if the application is not genuinely urgent and is likely to dismiss it.
What is the cost of seeking an interim injunction?
The cost will depend on the factual and legal complexity of the case, the seniority of counsel instructed and whether the injunction is sought on an urgent basis or not. We require a minimum payment of £10,000 on client account before undertaking work on an interim injunction or £15,000 on an urgent interim injunction (which will require two hearings).
As above, an interim injunction is not a standalone remedy and the final cost of the litigation could be significantly higher.
How can Brett Wilson LLP help?
Media law is a specialist area of law. Our media law and communications department exclusively undertakes this work and our solicitors are experienced in dealing with injunction applications. These applications require court papers and complex legal arguments to be prepared in short order. We will take your instructions and work with you to ensure your evidence is prepared effectively, to give you the best chance of obtaining the injunction.
Our work is of the highest standard. Every case we handle is run by a specialist media law solicitor with strategic input from a partner. As well as being listed in the prestigious Legal 500, Chambers and Partners and The Times Best Law Firms directories as a leading firm in the fields of defamation, privacy and reputation management law, partners Iain Wilson, Max Campbell and Tom Double are all individually recognised as leading individuals. Iain Wilson and Max Campbell are additionally recommended by the Spear’s 500 HNWI directory for their reputation management work. Iain Wilson is also recommended in the Tatler Address Book. Most importantly, the firm receives excellent feedback from its clients and contemporaries.
Do you act for defendants?
Yes, we have extensive experience representing defendants facing injunction applications or who are the subject of injunctions. If you have been served with papers we strongly recommend that you contact us immediately – and normally prior to contacting the claimant’s solicitors. If time permits, keep your powder dry; don’t play lawyer.
Who do I contact?
We normally have specialist media law solicitors available at short notice to deal with prospective injunction applications. If you are seeking an urgent injunction and are in a position to retain the firm please call 020 7183 8950 and ask to speak with a media law solicitor.
Not all cases warrant an interim injunction or the costs/risks are prohibitive. There may be other options available to you: for example, we can seek to negotiate an out of court settlement by agreeing contractual undertakings.
In most instances we offer fixed fee consultations from £750 plus VAT to review papers, take instructions and advise you on options. These are extremely popular with clients who are unsure what, if any, legal action to take – as well as defendants facing an injunction application.
To request a consultation please send us an email, complete our online enquiry form or call us on 020 7183 8950. If emailing or using the online form, please provide a short outline of your situation.
Details of the cost of a consultation will be provided following your enquiry.
We regret that we are unable to review your case or provide advice prior to a consultation or without being formally instructed.
We do not offer alternative funding arrangements. Please only contact us if you are in a position to retain lawyers.
Contact us to request a consultation
Call 020 7183 8950
or send us a message.
Notable reported cases
- Smith v Backhouse  EWCA Civ 874
- Wai v Kywe (2023)
- Evans v McMahon (2023)
- Embery v Grady (2023) (SIOC)
- Global Processing Services (UK) Ltd v Yanpolsky & Anor  EWHC 425 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse  EWHC 3011 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse (2022) (SIOC)
- Dew v Mills-Nanyn  EWHC 1925 (QB)
- Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor  EWHC 1688 (QB)
- GUH v KYT  EWHC 1854 (QB)
- Hopkinson v British Mensa Limited (2021) (SIOC)
- Blackledge v Persons Unknown  EWHC 1994
- Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor  EWHC 143 (QB)
- Wright v Ver  EWCA Civ 672
- JQL v NTP  EWHC 1349 (QB)
- Riley & Anor v Heybroek  EWHC 1259 (QB)
- Al Sadik v Sadik  EWHC 2717 (QB)
- Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd and Telegraph Media Group Ltd (2019) (SIOC)
- Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWHC 1525 (QB)
- Life 2009 Ltd v Lambeth London Borough Council (2019) (SIOC)
- Suttle v Walker  EWHC 396 (QB)
- Zarb-Cousin v Association of British Bookmakers & Anor  EWHC 2240 (QB)
- SWS v Department for Work and Pensions  EWHC 2282 (QB)
- Galloway v Ali-Khan  EWHC 780 (QB)
- Singh v Weayou  EWHC 2102 (QB)
- Guise v Shah  EWHC 1689 (QB)
- Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown  EWHC 2628 (QB)
- QRS v Beach & Anor  EWHC 1489 (QB)
- Myers v Ong (2014) (SIOC)
- Myers v Ryce (2014) (SIOC)
- QRS v Beach & Anor  EWHC 3057 (QB)
- Tamiz v Google Inc  EWCA Civ 68
- The Law Society & Ors v Kordowski  EWHC 3185 (QB)
- Kordowski v Hudson  EWHC 2667 (QB)