Harassment and Defamation: birthday present that went wrong, abusive websites and a theme park – Sara Mansoori

16 10 2014

BrandWhat do Russell Brand, the owner of Chessington World of Adventures and an anonymised partner of a law firm and a company director all have in common? They have all claimed to have been harassed and have sought anti-harassment injunctions over the summer. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: OPO v MLA, Shock and disbelief at the Court of Appeal – Dan Tench

13 10 2014

Book BanLast week’s Court of Appeal  decision in OPO v MLA ([2014] EWCA Civ 1277) week is the most bewildering judgment for many years. A man who had “obtained a high degree of distinction in his chosen career” had written a book which covered among other things his childhood sexual abuse at school.  Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Firma EDV für Sie v Germany, Article 8, companies and the right to reputation – Hugh Tomlinson QC

9 10 2014

ARCHITECTURE STOCKThe decision in Firma EDV für Sie, EfS Elektronische Datenverarbeitung Dienstleistungs GmbH v Germany (App No, 32783/08, 2 September 2014) involved a consideration of the interesting question as to whether a company has a right to reputation under Article 8.  The Fifth Section of the Court proceeded on the basis that a company did have such rights. The application was, however, found to be inadmissible on the basis that a fair balance had been struck between Articles 8 and 10 by the domestic court. Read the rest of this entry »





Carter-Ruck: guardians of free speech: yes, really – Hardeep Singh

4 10 2014

carter-ruckFreelance journalist Hardeep Singh faced the fight of his life when he was personally sued by a Sikh holyman in what would become a cause celebre in the campaign for libel reform. He was thrown a lifeline in his free speech battle from what many journalists would see as an unlikely source. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Merlin Entertainments v Cave, When does a righteous campaign shade into harassment? – Rosalind English

3 10 2014

chessington_world_of_adventures_kobra2The case of Merlin Entertainments LPC v Peter Cave ([2014] EWHC 3036 (QB)) explores the extent to which a campaign of criticism, conducted by internet and email, can merit restraint by the civil courts. As the judge says, whatever the aims of the campaign in question, its supporters may, in the course of their activities, annoy, irritate, and upset companies and individuals.  But should the courts interfere, before the question whether the campaign is justified has been decided?  And to what extent is such a campaign a criminal offence? Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Karácsony and Szél v. Hungary, sanctions on protesting parliamentarians breached Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

23 09 2014

HungarianParliamentBuildingIn the cases of Karácsony and v Hungary and Szél v.Hungary (applications nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13) decided on 16 September 2014 the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that financial sanctions imposed by the Speaker on demonstrating members of the opposition in the Hungarian Parliament were a violation of Article 10. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Luxembourg: Deckmyn v Vandersteen, Court broadens concept of parody, and returns the hot potatoes to the national court – Dirk Voorhoof and Inger Høedt-Rasmussen

8 09 2014

image1The case of Deckmyn v Vandersteen (Case C-201/13) on parody considers a set of questions related to the right to freedom of expression conflicting with copyright, and the impact of the Information Society (Infosoc) Directive 2001/29.  In particular, it raises the question whether the parody exception must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, despite the optional nature of the parody exception mentioned in Article 5(3)(k) of the Directive 2001/29.

Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,919 other followers