Gotti v Perrett

Subject Matter

INJUNCTION — Interim — Undertaking as to damages — Claimant applying for interim injunction restraining defendant from posting information claimant deeming defamatory on social media — County Court granting interim injunction despite claimant’s failure to comply with procedural and jurisdictional requirements — Claimant failing to issue claim form and providing no undertaking in damages — Defendant applying for discharge of injunction and payment of damages for financial loss and costs resulting from injunction — Whether application for interim injunction constituting “proceedings” before court where no claim form issued and no undertakings given as to damages or issue of claim form — Whether court having power in proceedings to make orders ancillary to discharge of injunction for costs and damages — County Courts Act 1984 (c 28), s 38 — CPR Pts 23, 25

[2025] EWCA Civ 1168; [2025] WLR(D) 479, CA

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In Gotti v Perrett, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the discharge of an interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The court upheld the validity of the proceedings despite procedural errors, permitting ancillary orders for costs and damages to the respondent. The appellant's claim that the injunction was a nullity due to the lack of a claim form was rejected, affirming the court's jurisdiction. The appeal was characterised as an affront to common sense in light of the case's circumstances.

Issues

• Did the court have the jurisdiction to make orders ancillary to the discharge of the injunction despite the absence of a claim form being issued by the claimant?
• Was the application for an injunction made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 valid, given that it was submitted using the incorrect form and without the necessary procedural undertakings?
• Did the claimant's argument that the injunction proceedings were a nullity due to procedural errors undermine the court's ability to award costs and damages to the defendant upon discharging the injunction?