‘Back in 2008, the late lamented News of the World published an article under the headline “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers”. It had obtained footage of an orgy involving Max Mosley and five ladies of dubious virtue, all of whom were undoubtedly (despite the News of the World having blocked out their faces) not Mrs Mosley. The breach of privacy proceedings before Eady J (Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 687 (QB)) established that the ‘Nazi’ allegation was unfounded and unfair, that the footage was filmed by a camera secreted in “such clothing as [one of the prostitutes] was wearing” (at [5]), and also the more genteel fact that even S&M ‘prison-themed’ orgies stop for a tea break (at [4]), rather like a pleasant afternoon’s cricket, but with a rather different thwack of willow on leather.’
Panopticon, 30th January 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Andrew Mitchell, the Tory MP and former cabinet minister at the centre of the Plebgate row lost his high court libel trial on Thursday in a ruling which sees him facing a legal bill of millions of pounds and leaves his political career in tatters.’
The Guardian, 27th November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The case of a UK businessman who wants Google to stop malicious web postings about him appearing in its search results is set to begin.’
BBC News, 24th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Where a court was determining whether to exercise its discretion under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the one-year limitation period applying by virtue of section 4A of the 1980 Act to a claim for libel, the claimant’s ignorance of the limitation period would rarely if ever be a factor which carried any or any significant weight given the policy reasons underlying the one-year limitation period for libel claims.’
WLR Daily, 30th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Daily Mail faces a potential legal bill that could be as high as £3m, believed to be among the highest since controversial no-win, no-fee agreements were introduced, after libelling a businessman.’
The Guardian, 14th November 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A man whose father was killed by a lethal overdose from a doctor said he feels “physically sick” at the idea of paying the physician’s legal costs.’
BBC News, 7th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A polo pony called Lady Gaga was at the centre of a High Court libel battle after her ‘reputation was slurred’ on YouTube.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Gerry McCann, the father of missing Madeleine, has accused the Sunday Times of behaving “disgracefully”, after winning a libel payout from the newspaper in a case he believes proves how little the industry has changed following the phone-hacking scandal. McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago.’
The Guardian, 2nd October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A law firm has won an injunction against a former client who set up websites about the firm with its name in the URL, after the High Court deemed his actions to be harassment.’
Legal Futures, 29th September 2014
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd: [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 383
‘Since all factual issues in a libel action were for the eventual substantive tribunal it was inappropriate that the outcome of a preliminary application for trial by jury in such an action should be informed by a decision as to whether the case was about factual allegations or about value judgments.’
WLR Daily, 20th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cooke and another v MGN Ltd and another: [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 379
‘By not defining the term “serious harm” in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, Parliament had left it to the courts to decide whether the serious harm test had been satisfied on the individual facts of contested claims. In cases where the statements complained of were so obviously likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation, that likelihood could be inferred from the words used without the need for further evidence.’
WLR Daily, 13th August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 17th June 2012 the Daily Star Sunday published an article about Jimmy White, the well-known professional snooker player, and John Callaghan, a friend and fan of Mr White. The article was in hard copy and online editions and remained online until 17th August 2012.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 27th May 2014
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 has been the subject of a variety of legal challenges. The Article, which provides (in modern parlance) that: “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament” is usually considered to be a fundamental feature of the constitution and a cornerstone of parliamentary privilege.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st May 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Award-winning line-dancing teacher Val Myers given apology in High Court after rival falsely accused him of assault and harassing members of the line-dancing community.’
Daily Telegraph, 14th May 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Russell Brand has accepted “substantial” libel damages from the Sun on Sunday over the false claim that he cheated on his girlfriend Jemima Khan.’
The Guardian, 8th May 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘How can a society balance both the freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press, with the individual’s right to reputation? Defamation law seeks to address precisely this delicate equation. Especially in the age of the internet, where it is possible to publish immediately and anonymously, these concerns have become even more pressing and complex. The Defamation Act 2013 has introduced some of the most important changes to this area in recent times, including the defence for honest opinion, new internet-specific reforms protecting internet publishers, and attempts to curb an industry of “libel tourism” in the U.K.’
OUP Blog, 14th April 2014
Source: www.blog.oup.com
‘Much has been written on the mental gymnastics required by the Defamation (Operators of
Websites) Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”) issued under section 5 of the Defamation
Act 2013 (“the Act”).’
5RB, 4th March 2014
Source: www.5rb.com
Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham [2014] EWCA Civ 179; [2014] WLR (D) 98
‘Where a claim in defamation was brought against the defendant for repeating at an extra-parliamentary inquiry his evidence before a parliamentary committee, he was immune from the claim, by virtue of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, because of the public interest in the evidence and the close nexus between the evidence on the two occasions.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings has long been protected from libel action by the defence of privilege. Contemporaneous fair and accurate reports of court proceedings in public are now protected by absolute privilege and other fair and accurate reports by qualified privilege. In the former case no libel action can be brought, in the latter an action will only succeed if malice is proved.’
Legal Week, 27th February 2014
Source: www.legalweek.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024