A time to reflect: the serious harm test – Oliver Lock and Tom Rudkin

31 07 2016

Defamation ActOn 1 January 2014, the Defamation Act 2013 came into force in England and Wales, introducing a series of new provisions applicable to the law of libel and slander. Of greatest interest was Section 1 of the Act, the “serious harm” requirement. This introduced a new hurdle for persons and businesses wanting to bring a claim for defamation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements




Defamed by Persons Unknown – Interview with Iain Wilson

30 07 2016

The case of Smith v Unknown Defendants [2016] EWHC 1775 (QB) was a libel action against unknown defendants who had published defamatory material on a website, the Queen’s Bench Division granted the claimant’s application for default judgment against the second defendant in his absence and granted summary relief of £10,000 in damages as well as injunctions prohibiting publication of further allegations and requiring the removal of any allegations placed elsewhere. Read the rest of this entry »





The Daily Mirror Sues a Source From Whom It Stole a Story – Jonathan Coad

29 07 2016

Daily Mirror front page- Tulisa and Danny SimpsonThe Court of Appeal gave judgment on 26 July 2016 in a case which the Mirror is suing a young single mother called Stephanie Ward from which whom it stole a story which the paper then published as an “exclusive” on its front page. Read the rest of this entry »





Digital Economy Bill, Clause 64, HMRC information – Dan Tench

29 07 2016

hmrc-2In a post on 26 July 2016, I wrote about three curiosities arising from Part 5 of the Digital Economy Bill which provides for the sharing of information in government.  There is however one further important curiosity relating to Part 5 of the Bill concerning information held by HMRC and arising from a case recently before the Supreme Court, R (Ingenious Media and Anr) v HMRCRead the rest of this entry »





News: Shipping Magnate’s son loses rape claim libel case – Media Lawyer

28 07 2016

EconomouA shipping magnate’s son who said he endured a five-week “public rubbishing” because of the actions of the father of a woman who accused him of rape has lost his libel action. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: CICAD v Switzerland, Finding that allegation of “anti-semitism” was defamatory did not breach Article 10 – Calypso Blaj

27 07 2016

couv2_0In the case of CICAD v Switzerland (Judgment of 7 June 2016)(French only), the Third Section of the Court of Human Rights held that a judgment finding that an accusation of anti-semitism made by the applicant was unlawful did not violate Article 10.  The Court refused to engage with issues as to the definition of “anti-semitism” but accepted the conclusions of the national court that such a serious allegation could not be justified. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Simpson v MGN, Court of Appeal creates a new distinction between “defamatory meaning” and “sting” – Jonathan Coad

26 07 2016

SimpsonIn a judgment which betrays the complete lack of familiarity the law of defamation of its panel of three the Court of Appeal has overturned decades of precedent on a key issue in defamation proceedings, which is the establishment at an early stage of the defamatory meaning/sting of a publication (the two terms being synonyms). Read the rest of this entry »