Economou & Co LLC successfully represented a leading electronic money institution in complex online defamation proceedings before the District Court of Limassol.

In its judgment issued in February, the Court rendered previously issued ex-parte interim injunctions absolute pending the final adjudication of the action, dismissing in its entirety an extensive opposition filed by the defendants.

The proceedings arose from a sustained online publication campaign alleged to have caused serious reputational and commercial harm to our client through online websites and social media dissemination.

Background of the Proceedings

Following the filing of the action, the claimant secured interim injunctions restraining:

• The continued publication and republication of allegedly defamatory material;
• further dissemination across websites and social media platforms;

The defendants subsequently challenged the injunctions via 72 separate grounds of opposition, raising jurisdictional, procedural, legal, evidential and constitutional arguments, including freedom of expression considerations.

Following a hearing, the Court rejected all grounds of opposition and rendered the interim injunctions absolute.

Key Findings

In its detailed judgment, the Court reaffirmed the established principles governing the issuance of interim injunctions in the area of defamation law.

1. Requirements for Interim Injunctive Relief

The Court confirmed that all conditions for maintaining and rendering the interim injunctions absolute were satisfied, namely:

1. Existence of a serious issue to be tried - the claim disclosed properly arguable causes of action in defamation and malicious falsehood.
2. Probability of entitlement to relief - the evidence demonstrated a visible likelihood that the Applicant would succeed at trial;
3. Risk of injustice absent interim protection - without injunctive relief, continued online dissemination would make effective justice difficult or impossible at a later stage;
4. Balance of convenience - preservation of the injunctions best protected the status quo pending the final adjudication of the action.

2. Absence of Prima Facie Defences

A central feature of the judgment was the Court’s examination of the Defendants’ alleged defences. The Court found that no defence was established on a prima facie basis.

(a) No Prima Facie Defence of Truth

The Court held that the publications were objectively defamatory, being capable of lowering the Applicant’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person.

(b) No Prima Facie Defence of Responsible Journalism

The Court further found that:

• the publications formed a sustained and repetitive campaign targeting the Applicant;
• the persistence of publications despite lack of factual foundation exceeded the limits of responsible reporting;
• the pattern of conduct approached obsession;
• articles removed following complaint reappeared in substantially similar form; and
• these circumstances prima facie indicated absence of good faith.

(c) No Other Prima Facie Defence Established

The Court concluded that no prima facie alternative defence arose on the evidence presented.

3. Findings Indicative of Malice and Harm

The Court considered that:

• the absence of good faith raised a prima facie issue of malicious intent; and
• the Applicant demonstrated tangible commercial consequences, including banking and regulatory difficulties arising from the publications.

4. Rendering the Interim Injunctions Absolute

Having assessed the evidence and legal principles, the Court held that all requirements for continuation of the interim injunctions were met:

• the Applicant showed a clear likelihood of success in defamation and malicious falsehood claims;
• damages alone would not constitute an adequate remedy;
• reputational damage posed particular risk to a regulated financial institution; and
• there was a real likelihood of continued publication absent judicial intervention.

Accordingly, the Court rendered the interim injunctions absolute, ensuring that the protective measures remain in force pending the final determination of the action.

Importance in Online Defamation Litigation

Interim injunctions restraining allegedly defamatory publications, particularly in the digital era - remain exceptional remedies. Courts exercise considerable caution before restricting publication, given the need to balance protection of reputation against constitutional freedom of expression rights.

For this reason, the rendering of interim injunctions absolute in a defamation action, following extensive opposition by the alleged wrongdoers, is a significant development.

The judgment demonstrates:

• the high threshold required for injunctive relief in defamation cases, and the Court’s willingness to grant such protection only where the evidence clearly justifies intervention;
• judicial recognition of the amplified and continuing harm caused by online dissemination, where reputational damage may persist, multiply and become irreversible before trial;
• confirmation that Cypriot courts will intervene decisively where sustained digital publication creates ongoing commercial and regulatory risk; and
• the availability of efficient interim remedies capable of providing real protection to regulated entities facing coordinated or repetitive online allegations.

In practical terms, the decision highlights that, although rare, interim restraints on online publications will be granted where the circumstances demonstrate serious reputational harm, absence of credible defences, and a clear risk that justice would otherwise be undermined before the final adjudication of the action.

This outcome further reinforces Economou & Co LLC’s position in high-stakes defamation disputes and complex emergency injunction litigation in the digital and financial services sector.

Click here for our full guide on Internet Defamation.