Background
Drive Time Motors Ltd (DTML), a used-car dealer, applied for an interim injunction against Creditsafe Business Solutions Ltd, a credit-reference agency. Creditsafe’s online profile for DTML recorded six county court judgments (CCJs) as negative information: three as exact matches and three as possible matches. DTML did not challenge one exact match, but sought suppression or delinking of the other five, alternatively a requirement that they be marked disputed and excluded from risk-score and credit-limit outputs.
DTML contended that the five disputed judgments related instead to Euro Trader Ltd, another used-car business associated with the same address and some of the same directors. Creditsafe had received the judgment information from Registry Trust Ltd, whose data did not name Euro Trader Ltd. DTML relied on invoices said to support the connection of the relevant trading activity with Euro Trader, and alleged inaccurate reporting, negligent matching, negligent misstatement, and injurious falsehood.
The Court’s Holding
Fordham J dismissed the application for interim relief. Creditsafe had acted on unchallenged Registry Trust data in which each judgment used a form of “Drive Time” and the same Greenleas Farm address. Matching CCJs to companies could involve evaluative judgment, and the invoices did not refer to Euro Trader Ltd. On the evidence, DTML had no real prospect of establishing negligence, recklessness, or malice by Creditsafe.
The court also held that there was no freestanding cause of action for “publication of inaccurate or misleading business credit information.” A negligence claim faced the analysis in Smeaton v Equifax Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108. Further obstacles included the absence of evidence supporting a meaningful cross-undertaking in damages and the status-quo consequences of suppressing information Creditsafe considered accurate. Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 applied because the order would restrain publication by a credit-reference agency; DTML was nowhere near demonstrating likely success at trial.
Key Takeaways
- A credit-reference agency’s evaluative matching of CCJ data to a company was not, on these facts, shown to be negligent or reckless.
- An applicant seeking to restrain publication by a credit-reference agency must satisfy the heightened likely-success requirement in Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3).
- The court ordered DTML to pay Creditsafe’s summarily assessed costs of £16,250 within 28 days.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the difficulty of obtaining urgent court-ordered suppression of public judgment information in a business credit profile. A business disputing attribution must present evidence capable of showing more than an arguable disagreement with the agency’s matching assessment.
It also treats credit reporting as publication engaging the statutory protection for freedom of expression. That substantially raises the threshold for interim relief before trial.