Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269

Facts

  • The case involved allegations of defamation published in a newspaper, asserting the plaintiff, a businessman, had engaged in fraudulent conduct.
  • The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent further publication of the alleged defamatory statements, fearing irreparable harm to his reputation.
  • The defendant argued the statements were true and that preventing their publication would unjustly restrict free expression and matters of public interest.
  • The dispute was heard by the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Lindley.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent further publication of alleged defamatory statements before trial.
  2. Whether interlocutory restraint on publication unjustifiably restricts the defendant's right to free speech in the absence of clear indefensibility.
  3. Whether the risk of reputational harm to the plaintiff outweighs the interest in permitting public debate.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal declined to grant the interlocutory injunction.
  • The court held that such an injunction in defamation cases should only be granted if it is clear that no defence of justification or privilege could succeed.
  • It was emphasized that determining the truth or falsity of statements is a matter for trial and pre-trial restraint risks anticipating the final decision.
  • The judgment highlighted the need to allow defendants a full opportunity to present their evidence and arguments.

Legal Principles

  • Interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases will only be granted if the statement is manifestly indefensible, i.e., no possible defence of justification, privilege, or fair comment.
  • Courts must exercise caution to avoid unduly restricting freedom of expression prior to a full trial.
  • The burden rests on the claimant to demonstrate that the defence cannot possibly succeed before the court will restrain publication.
  • The decision reflects the principle that alleged defamatory statements should ordinarily be tested at trial rather than by preemptive injunction.

Conclusion

Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 established the enduring principle that interlocutory injunctions in defamation cases are to be granted only in the clearest cases where no defence could succeed, ensuring protection of reputational interests while safeguarding free expression until the matter can be resolved at trial.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal