Liristis v Malhotra

The case of Liristis v Malhotra involved a claim for defamation where the plaintiff sought to remove defamatory statements from websites and to restrain the defendant from making future defamatory statements. The application was made ex parte, without the defendant being present or having the opportunity to respond. The court was required to determine whether to grant the injunctions sought by the plaintiff.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried that they would likely succeed in obtaining injunctive relief rather than merely damages. The court also had to consider the principles of equity, particularly the reluctance of the courts to restrain publication of defamatory statements. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that there was a serious question to be tried that they would be entitled to injunctive relief at a final hearing. Consequently, the application for injunctions was dismissed.

The court's reasoning was that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a serious question to be tried. The court emphasised the well-established principle that courts of equity are hesitant to interfere with the freedom of speech and publication unless there is a clear and compelling case for doing so. The court concluded that the plaintiff's application was unlikely to succeed at a final hearing, and thus, the application was dismissed without a hearing.