The UK High Court has recently refused three interlocutory applications in Cynthia Niruka Tooley v Times Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 675 (KB), arising from an article published in The Times titled “wife of anti-woke professor says she was ‘bullied’ by police”.

This decision provides a timely reminder of the American Cyanamid principles, as well as the heightened threshold applicable to claims seeking to restrain publication, particularly in defamation cases.

Case Background and Key Facts of the High Court Injunction Decision

On 1 December 2025, the Claimant, Cynthia Tooley, issued proceedings against the Defendant, Times Media Ltd, for libel and malicious falsehood arising from an article published in The Times bearing the headline “Wife of anti-woke professor says she was ‘bullied’ by police” (the ‘Article’). Prior to service, Cynthia Tooley amended the claim form to expand the causes of action to include misuse of private information and breach of confidence.

On 6 January 2026, Cynthia Tooley filed an application in the proceedings for an interim injunction. On 21 January 2026, she then filed an application to amend the interim injunction application to clarify that relief was sought primarily for misuse of private information and breach of confidence. This reframing became a central issue in the case.

Cynthia Tooley contended that the Article contained fabricated quotations, misleading attributions and false descriptions of her actions and character, giving the impression of criminality, instability and hostility towards the police which caused serious harm to her reputation and distress to both her and her children. Cynthia Tooley claimed damages for defamation and/or malicious falsehood not exceeding £150,000, together with other relief as the court deemed fit.

The interim injunction application sought to restrain Times Media Ltd from publishing or continuing to publish defamatory articles and similar meanings. This was later amended to an application to restrain Times Media Ltd from publishing or continuing to publish the Article or any words or meanings to the same or similar effect insofar as such publication misuses her private information or breaches confidence, and in the alternative conveys defamatory meanings.

Times Media Ltd submitted that in view of the higher threshold that applies where an interim injunction is sought to restrain publication in a case based on defamation and/or malicious falsehood, rather than misuse of private information and/or breach of confidence, the courts are alive to attempts to reframe cases with a view to benefiting from the lower threshold.

When considering whether to grant the interim injunction, the High Court noted that courts will usually apply the well-established test from American Cyanamid Co (No1) v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1; however, a more exacting test is required in this case. When an injunction sought may interfere with freedom of expression, section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies. Interim injunctions to restrain defamatory publications are also subject to an even higher threshold than section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, known as the rule in Bonnard v Perryman or the “defamation rule”.

The American Cyanamid Test

This case serves as a useful reminder of the American Cyanamid principles. The American Cyanamid case established that in considering an application for an interim injunction, the court will consider:

1. Is there a serious question to be tried?
2. If yes, would damages be an adequate remedy?
3. If not, where does the ‘balance of convenience’ lie?

The central principle is that the court should take whatever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other.

Whether there is a serious issue to be tried

The judge will ask whether the applicant’s case is “arguable”, not whether they are certain to be successful, as this is a matter reserved for trial. The burden is on the applicant to show there is a real issue to be tried.

Whether damages will be an adequate remedy

The court will then consider whether monetary compensation would properly address the harm the applicant is claiming, rather than a court order restraining the respondents’ actions. If damages are a suitable remedy which is adequate to compensate the applicant and the respondent would be able to satisfy any award, the court should refuse the interim injunction.

Where the balance of convenience lies

Finally, the court weighs the respective prejudice each party would suffer depending on whether the injunction is granted or refused. The question is who stands to lose more, and can those losses be compensated later? If the balance falls evenly, then the court should consider granting the interim injunction to preserve the status quo.

The factors to be considered include:

1. The prejudice the applicant may suffer if no injunction is granted;
2. The prejudice the respondent may suffer if the injunction is granted.
3. The likelihood of such prejudice actually occurring.
4. The extent to which the applicant may be compensated by an award of damages or enforcement of a cross undertaking in damages;
5. The likelihood of either party being able to satisfy such an award; and
6. The likelihood that the injunction will turn out to have been wrongly granted or withheld.

Defamation Rule and Higher Threshold

The Tooley v Times Media case was subject to a higher test than that set out in American Cyanamid. In defamation cases, the court will only grant an interim injunction where each of the following conditions is met:

1. The statement is unarguably defamatory;
2. There are no grounds for concluding the statement may be true;
3. There is no other defence which might succeed; and
4. There is evidence of an intention to repeat or publish the defamatory statement.

In short, the defamation rule requires an applicant to show that the claim is bound to succeed.

When Businesses Need Interim Injunctions – Decision in Tooley v Times Media

In a judgment handed down on 23 March 2026, The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE applied the “defamation rule” and determined that, as the claim was not bound to succeed, the interim relief should not be granted.

When might an interim injunction be needed in a business dispute?

Interim injunctions are useful in many contexts and can assist businesses to:

1. Stop a competitor or ex-employee from using and/or leaking confidential information or trade secrets;
2. Prevent a supplier from breaching an exclusive supply contract;
3. Protect intellectual property rights; and
4. Freeze a party’s assets to prevent them from disappearing before you can enforce a judgment

Key Takeaways for Businesses

The Tooley v Times Media case serves as a useful reminder that, particularly in defamation cases, the bar remains deliberately high to protect freedom of expression, and the courts are cautious about granting injunctions which interfere with publications. While American Cyanamid continues to provide a general framework where freedom of expression is engaged, the hurdle is significantly higher. Cynthia Tooley had effectively tried to reframe her case so as to benefit from the lower threshold and had failed in her attempt to do so. 

If you would like any further information or to discuss the content of this article further, please contact us to speak to a member of our Dispute Resolution Team for tailored advice.