Case Law, Australia: Mahon v Mach 1 Financial Services. Fijian Property Developer’s Case Struck Out – Justin Castelan

It is well known that a plaintiff has very little chance of getting an injunction to restrain the publication of defamatory matter.  Courts will usually say that damages are an adequate remedy. It is also well known that the Defamation Act provides that, for the most part, a company cannot sue for defamation in Australia.  So what does a company do? Injurious falsehood is the go. A company can sue if there is a false malicious publication and it causes actual financial loss to that company. Very difficult, especially proving malice and especially financial loss, but unlike defamation, the chance for an injunction is greatly increased.

Case Law, Australia: Sands v South Australia, No tort for breach of privacy – Justin Castelan

In a trial that ran for 55 days late last year and concluding in February this year, the plaintiff, Derick John Sands, has lost his claim for defamation, as well as other claims including a breach of confidence and a breach of his right to privacy. Judgment was given on 5 April 2013 ([2013] SASC 44).

Case Law, Strasbourg, Novaya Gazeta v Russia, libel claim by politician over corruption article, no violation of Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

The decision of the Court of Human Rights in Novaya Gazeta v Russia ([2013] ECHR 251) is an interesting reminder of the requirement of journalistic responsibility even in the context of public interest articles about politicians.  The case concerned a domestic libel judgment in favour of a Regional Governor based on an article containing a value judgment.  It was, nevertheless, held to have been justified under Article 10(2) as there was insufficient factual basis for the statement made.  The article had not been written responsibly.

Case Law, Court of Human Rights, The Pirate Bay v. Sweden, Copyright versus Freedom of Expression II – Dirk Voorhoof and Inger Høedt-Rasmussen,

Only a few weeks after the Strasbourg Court’s judgment in the case of Ashby Donald and others v. France (ECtHR 10 January 2013, see our Inforrm post here) the Court of has decided a new case of conflicting rights between copyright and freedom of expression. The case of Fredrik Neij and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi (The Pirate Bay) v. Sweden, Appl. nr. 40397/12 concerned the complaint by two of the co-founders of “The Pirate Bay”, that their conviction for complicity to commit crimes in violation of the Copyright Act had breached their freedom of expression and information.

Case Law, Strasbourg: Eon v France, Satirical insult of head of state should not be a criminal offence – Rosalind English

Eon v France, no. 26118/10   14 March 2013- read judgment (in French only).  The applicant, Hervé Eon, is a French national, a socialist and anti-GM activist living Laval (France). The case concerned his conviction for insulting President Sarkozy.

During a visit by the President to the département of Mayenne on 28 August 2008, Mr Eon had waved a placard reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”), a phrase uttered by the President himself several months previously when a farmer had refused to shake his hand at the International Agricultural Show. The utterance was widely disseminated in the media and on the internet, attaining the status of a slogan.

Case Law, Court of Human Rights, Yildrim v Turkey – Closing down of “Google Sites” breached Article 10

In the case of Yildrim v Turkey (Case No 3111/10) the Court of Human Rights decided that a Court order blocking access to “Google Sites” in Turkey was a violation of Article 10.  The measure was not “prescribed by law” because it was not reasonably foreseeable or in accordance with the rule of law.  The judgment is available only in French.

Inforrm Blog Resources: new and improved Tables of Cases

The Tables of Cases across the top of Inforrm blog have been supplemented and updated.  We now have four different tables, containing references to media law cases decided over the past three years.  The table of Privacy cases has now been brought up to date.  In summary the four tables cover the following material.

Case Law, Canada: Pridgeon v University of Calgary, Freedom of Expression, University Discipline and Facebook – Aileen McColgan

The use of social media by students to criticise their courses and teachers gives rise to difficult freedom of expression issues. The point has been considered by the courts in a number of jurisdictions, most recently in the Canadian case of Pridgen & Pridgen v University of Calgary ([2012] ABCA 139) which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal in Alberta. The Court held that the University infringed the freedom of expression rights of twin brothers who had been disciplined for criticising a professor on Facebook.

Case Law: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fontevecchia v Argentina – balancing privacy and freedom of expression

An important international human rights case on privacy and freedom of expression has recently been brought to our attention.  On 29 November 2011 the Inter American Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in the case of Fontevecchia v Argentina (Case No 12.524).  The case involved the conviction and order to pay damages of two journalists –  Jorge Fontevecchia and Héctor D’Amico –  for the disclosure of personal information about the life of Carlos Saúl Menem, the then President of Argentina. There was a public hearing on 24 and 25 August 2011 in Bogota.

Case Law: KC v MGN, an offer of amends assessment at the top of the scale

The father of “Baby P” was awarded compensation of £75,000 under the “offer of amends” procedure.  Judgment in the case of KC v MGN Ltd ([2012] EWHC 483 (QB)) was handed down on 5 March 2012.  Although the case was based on the publication of serious allegations the number of publishees was small and the award appears to be at the top of the scale.  The defendant made an unsuccessful application to the judge for permission to appeal.