or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses to grant an interlocutory order restraining or prohibiting the publication of a video recording on social media, where the plaintiff was linked to the sale of a 'miracle mineral solution', on the grounds that such an order should only be made in the clearest cases, and that it would not be unreasonable for a jury to determine that the video recording was not defamatory of the plaintiff.
Application for injunction - video posted on social media - whether video recording was defamatory - defamation proceedings - interlocutory application - connection between 'sovereign movement' and sale of 'MMS' - "miracle mineral solution" - sovereign movement being a fringe group who reject the law of the state - allegation that plaintiff preyed on vulnerable people - s. 33(1) of the Defamation Act, 2009 - order prohibiting publication - whether any defence to the action that was likely to succeed - whether any difference between an 'opinion' of the court and a 'finding' of the court.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.