Inforrm: Easter Break and Hilary Term Case Review

7 04 2015

EasterThe Inforrm blog is taking a break from regular posting over Easter.  The Senior Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) are closed until 14 April 2014, when the short Easter Legal Term will begin.

We will however, continue to have the occasional post over the next 8 days – catching up with some “Case Comments” and with some important news items.  As usual, we invite posts from readers on “Media and Law” topics.  Contact us via the Inforrm email: inforrmeditorial@gmail.com.

We will take this opportunity to review the media law cases before the courts during the Hilary Legal Term – 12 January to 1 April 2015. There were 26 cases listed on our Table of Media Law cases for this term the same number as for Hilary Term 2014).

There was one Supreme Court decision on an important freedom of information issue: R (Evans) v HM Attorney-General ([2015] UKSC  21).  We had a case comment.

There were two Court of Appeal decisions in libel cases

  • Cruddas v Calvert ([2015] EWCA Civ 171) – a decision on justification We had a case comment
  • Rufus v Elliott ([2015] EWCA Civ 121) – a decision on meaning and capability (now that the right to jury trial has gone this is likely to be last decision in this once important area)

There were two other decisions of note

In our preview of the term we drew attention to three libel trials and one privacy trial.  In fact, the only full trial which took place was Rai v Bholowasia [2015] EWHC B2 (QB).

The trial in Razzaq v Blackheath Jamia Mosque Trust and Others ended prematurely with an order for summary judgment in the defendants’ favour,

There were two trials of specific issues in libel case

  • Rufus v Elliott ([2015] EWHC 807 (QB)), a trial of a preliminary issue on meaning.
  • The Bussey Law Firm PC v Page [2015] EWHC 563 (QB), an assessment of damages.  We had a case comment.

There was one privacy injunction: YXB v TNO ([2015] EWHC 826 (QB)).

There were a number of other interim decisions in media law cases.  We will mention just one, the case of Mosley v Google ([2015] EWHC 59 (QB)) – where permission to serve a data protection claim out of the jurisdiction was granted.  We had a case comment.

Of the the 20 first instance decisions in the Queen’s Bench Division in media law case 10 were given by Warby J and 3 by HHJ Parkes QC, with Sir David Eady giving 2 and the remainder being shared between five other judges.

Finally, we draw attention to three cases which were heard this term in which judgment is awaited:

  • OPO v MLA, heard 19 and 20 January 2015 (UK Supreme Court)
  • Murray v Associated Newspapers, heard 21 January 2015 (Longmore, Ryder and Sharp LJJ)
  • Various Claimants v MGN,  heard 9-13, 18, 24-25 March 2015 (Mann J)

Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: