Case Law, Kadir v Channel S Television, Assessment of damages in a libel claim – Sara Mansoori

31 07 2014

channelsuksThe case of Kadir v Channel S Television [2014] EWHC 2305 was a hearing for assessment of damages in a libel claim following default judgment.  The Defendant, a Channel broadcasting in the UK in the Bengali language, carried a news item in December 2011 alleging that the Second Claimant, a money transfer business, was reasonably suspected of fraud and that its director, Mr Kadir, had dealt with suspicions against the business’ employees in a highly evasive and incompetent manner. Read the rest of this entry »





The Defamation Act 2013, A Critical Evaluation, Part 5, The new intermediary defences – Dan Tench

31 07 2014

Defamation ActThis is the fifth and final post in this series about the Defamation Act 2013.  In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” and “public interest“. In this post, I conclude by looking at the new intermediary defences in section 5 and section 10. Read the rest of this entry »





News: Phone Hacking, Jules Stenson and Neil Wallis Charged with voicemail interception during period 2003 to 2007

30 07 2014

Jules-Stenson Neil WallisThe Crown Prosecution Service has announced today that it has authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Jules Stenson, former features editor of the News of the World and to summons Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the News of the World on a ‘phone hacking’ charge. Read the rest of this entry »





False Light, the Ripoff Report and Defragmentation – Susan Brenner

30 07 2014

36th_Street_exit_Grand_Rapids_I-96This post examines a recent opinion from the Michigan Court of AppealsRooks v. Krzewski, 2014 WL 1351353 (2014). Joseph Krzewski appealed when, after a bench trial, a udge held he “portrayed” the two plaintiffs, Jonathan Rooks and Bradley Guizinga, “in a false light.” Rooks v. Krzewski, supra.  The judge ordered Krzewski to “remove the false statements about [them] from the Internet and enjoined him from republishing any of the false statements.” Rooks v. Krzewski, supra.  (For more on false light, check out this post.) Read the rest of this entry »





Defamation Act 2013, A Critical Evaluation, Part 4, “Public Interest” defence – Dan Tench

29 07 2014

Defamation ActIn earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” in section 2 and section 3. In this post, I continue setting out concerns with the Defamation Act 2013 by looking at the public interest defence in section 4. Read the rest of this entry »





The Data Protection Act: a stone to sling at the Facebook Goliath? – Rhory Robertson and Sophie Pugh

29 07 2014

Facebook logo reflected in eyeWhen you log into Facebook the first thing you see is your ‘newsfeed’: a seemingly random collection of messages, status updates and photographs posted by your Facebook friends. We say “seemingly random” with scepticism because of course Facebook is not so rudimentary.  Read the rest of this entry »





Defamation Act 2013, A Critical Evaluation, Part 3, “Truth” and “Honest Opinion” – Dan Tench

28 07 2014

Defamation ActIn earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013 and concerns about section 1, “Serious harm”. In this post, I will look at at the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest opinion” which are set out section 2 and section 3. Read the rest of this entry »