LJY v Person(s) Unkown

Factual and Procedural Background

On 8 December 2017, the Court granted an interim injunction without notice to the intended defendants, restraining them from publishing allegations of serious criminal misconduct against the intended claimant ("Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff, a public figure in the entertainment industry, had received a letter demanding a financial settlement under threat of publication of damaging allegations. The letter was anonymous, vague, and assessed by the police as a blackmail attempt. The defendants' identities were unknown to the Plaintiff and police at the time of the hearing. The Plaintiff sought to prevent the threatened publication and remove the defendants' leverage to blackmail him.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should grant an interim injunction restraining publication of alleged serious criminal misconduct in circumstances of blackmail.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is likely to establish a claim based on misuse of private information, harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and/or defamation.
3. Whether the defamation rule precludes granting an injunction when the claim also involves allegations of blackmail.
4. How to manage service and case progression when defendants are unknown and anonymous.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The letter received by the Plaintiff is an obvious blackmail threat demanding £50,000 under threat of damaging publication.
• The Plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the alleged information, which is personal and intimate.
• The threatened publication would amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, involving a course of conduct causing alarm and distress.
• The injunction is justified on grounds of misuse of private information, harassment, and defamation, with the Plaintiff likely to succeed on all bases.
• The defamation rule should not apply to prevent granting the injunction because the claim involves criminal blackmail, which may constitute an exception.
• The Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction to prevent harm to reputation and to avoid the leverage used by blackmailers.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the balance between the Plaintiff's right to privacy and the defendants' right to freedom of expression. Applying the Human Rights Act 1998 and the threshold from Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee, the Court found that the Plaintiff was likely to succeed in establishing misuse of private information, harassment, and defamation claims.

The letter was assessed as a clear blackmail attempt, lacking credible detail and written anonymously, which undermined any defence by the defendants. The Court noted that blackmail represents a misuse of free speech rights, strengthening the case for restraint. The Plaintiff’s distress and the threat of multiple publications supported the harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Court acknowledged the defamation rule from Bonnard v Perryman but found that the exception for cases involving blackmail applied here, supported by dissenting and concurring opinions in Holley v Smyth. The Court also found no credible basis for defence by the defendants, including truth or public interest, and considered damages inadequate to remedy the harm.

Regarding procedural issues, the Court recognized difficulties in serving unknown defendants and emphasized the need for active case management. Alternative service methods, including texts to an untraceable phone number and filing documents at Court, were ordered to ensure the case could progress despite the anonymity of the defendants.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED an interim injunction restraining the defendants from publishing the serious criminal allegations against the Plaintiff. The injunction was justified on the grounds of misuse of private information, harassment, and defamation, with the Plaintiff likely to succeed on all claims.

The order was made without notice to the defendants due to the risk that notice would thwart the purpose of the injunction. The Court imposed specific service provisions to manage the challenge of unknown defendants and set a return date for further proceedings, including potential default judgment if the defendants failed to comply.

The decision protects the Plaintiff’s privacy and reputation, and serves the public interest by preventing the misuse of freedom of expression rights to facilitate blackmail. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.