Recent cases show when you may get an interim injunction to restrain publication of defamatory material

Cases involving claimants successfully obtaining an interim injunction for libel are always of interest – they almost never happen. In September 2010, a solicitor who has been the subject of allegedly defamatory postings on a website called Solicitors From Hell bucked the trend and successfully obtained her injunction.

Interim libel injunctions are rare because of the rule in the old case of Bonnard v. Perryman (1891) 2 Ch 269: interim injunctions should not be granted in defamation cases where the defendants indicate an intention to prove the truth of what they publish or transmit, i.e. raise a defence of justification.

s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 also affects the approach of the court: it provides that no relief affecting the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression is "to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed." The Act also directs in s.12(4) that "the court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression", and, where the proceedings relate to journalistic, literary or artistic material, to the extent to which "it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published."

The Court of Appeal in Greene v. Associated Newspapers (2005) QB 972 ruled that s.12(3) did not undermine the force of the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman, and explained that the ban on prior restraint in defamation cases (unless it is clear that no defence will succeed at trial), was based on the following:

  • The importance of freedom of speech.
  • The constitutional function of the jury (as fact-finders) should not be bypassed by a judge, unless he is satisfied that there is no case to go to the jury.
  • The fact that (until there has been disclosure of documents and cross-examination at trial) a court cannot safely find that what the defendants propose to publish is not true.
  • Damages including aggravated or exemplary damages are available where Defendants fail to prove the truth of what they chose to publish.

In September 2010, however, solicitor Anna Mazzola won an interim injunction in the High Court on the grounds of libel. The defamatory material consisted of postings about Ms Mazzola on the Solicitors from Hell website (http://solicitorsfromhell.co.uk/). The Judge granted the injunction against the man operating the website, ordering him to remove the allegations from the site. The claimant (through her barrister Guy Vassall-Adams) argued that the material about her on the website was clearly defamatory and that there were no grounds for concluding that it might be true. She argued that Solicitors From Hell was a grievance website which allowed members of the public to post anonymous complaints about solicitors, and that Mr Kordowski appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy. Mr Kordowski then used publication of the defamatory allegations as a way of extorting the solicitors and firms concerned to pay him to remove articles from the website.

Mr Kordowski had no evidence to support the allegations. His only argument was that they might be true. He had no other defence to Ms Mazzola's defamation action, and the evidence indicated that he intended to continue publishing the defamatory material.

The Judge granted an injunction against Kordowski forcing him to remove the libellous postings in question from the website.

Stop press

On 5 October 2010, a similar injunction was grated to another solicitor against Kordowski over another posting on the Solicitors from Hell website: Juliet Farrall v Rick Kordowski (2010) [2010[ EWHC 2436 (QB)

The allegation on the website was that the claimant was "downright crooked" and had displayed incompetence in proceedings in which she had, it was said, acted for the author of the allegations. The Judge held that there was no doubt that the words complained of were defamatory; Kordowski had not given any indication that he had any sort of defence, including that of justification; and under s. 12(3) the Judge found that the claimant was likely to establish that publication of the words complained of should not be allowed. It was therefore appropriate to grant an injunction prohibiting any further publication of the defamatory words about the claimant.

Stop press 2

It was reported on 13 October that yet another solicitor, Megan Phillips, was awarded £17,500 damages and her costs of £28,000 at the High Court against Kordowski along with a further and final injunction, over critical allegations against her which were described in court as 'vitriolic'.

Busy and expensive month for Mr Kordowski.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.