Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44 was a 2004 decision by the House of Lords on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on freedom of expression.

In it, Nicholls said that the test required by the Human Rights Act, "more likely than not", was a higher standard than "a real prospect of success", and that the Act "makes the likelihood of success at the trial an essential element in the court's consideration of whether to make an interim order",[3] asserting that in similar cases courts should be reluctant to grant interim injunctions unless it can be shown that the claimant is "more likely than not" to succeed.

At the same time, he admitted that the "real prospect of success" test was not necessarily insufficient, granting the appeal nonetheless because Lloyd J had ignored the public interest element of the disclosure.

Article 8 of the convention covers "the right to respect for private and family life", and during the passage of the Act through Parliament, elements of the press were concerned that this could affect their freedom of expression.

[8] On 5 July 2002, Lloyd J in the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) granted an interim injunction, saying that Cream had shown "a real prospect of success" at trial.

[9] On 13 February 2003, Simon Brown and Arden LJJ in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that Lloyd J had used the appropriate test, although Sedley LJ dissented.