Case Law, Australia: Moran v Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd, CSI Lismore: German backpacker’s efforts to prevent publication of book all in vain – Justin Castelan

27 02 2015

tobias-moranIn early 2005, the plaintiff, a German National with a working visa in Australia, was travelling along the east coast of Australia in a campervan with his German girlfriend of 6 and a half years, Simone Strobel. By the time they got to Lismore, they had been joined by the plaintiff’s sister, Katrin and another friend from their village in Germany called Jens. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law, Canada: Weaver v Corcoran, Reader postings are not defamatory but newspapers must remove and retract defamatory articles – Ryder Gilliland

24 02 2015

dr-andrew-weaver-with-th-001The recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Weaver v. Corcoran, 2015 BCSC 165 makes noteworthy and novel findings as pertains to online defamation and remedies for defamation. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law, Australia: Polias v Ryall, Defendants go all-in: Plaintiff calls their bluff and wins the $340,000 pot – Justin Castelan

22 02 2015

poliasThe plaintiff and four defendants were poker players used to playing high stakes games: hands worth thousands of dollars. In the middle of 2012, the plaintiff and the first defendant went to Las Vegas for a tournament and shared a room. Evidently for them, what happens in Vegas did not stay in Vegas. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Yeo v Times Newspapers, guidance on approach to costs budgeting in libel cases -

20 02 2015

Tim-Yeo-008 (1)In a recent case management conference in the ongoing Yeo v Times Newspapers libel litigation (also see our blog ‘The End of Juries in Libel Trials?’), Mr Justice Warby QC gave a written Judgment ([2015] EWHC 209 (QB)), which provides some guidance on the issue of costs budgeting in libel cases. Read the rest of this entry »

Defamation Act 2013: Does section 1 replace the test of the hypothetical reasonable reader by that of the twitter troll?, Part 2 – Adrienne Page QC

18 02 2015

APage_img1117-12-470x312The preliminary issues agreed by the parties in Cooke v MGN ([2014] EMLR 31) and directed by the Master, which came before Bean J, envisaged two issues being determined sequentially: (1) whether the words complained of bore the meanings alleged by the Claimants or any other meaning that (subject to serious harm) was defamatory of them and, if so, what meaning; and (2) whether the publication of those words had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimants’ reputations within the meaning of section 1. Read the rest of this entry »

Defamation Act 2013: Does section 1 replace the test of the hypothetical reasonable reader by that of the twitter troll? Part 1 – Adrienne Page QC

17 02 2015

APage_img1117-12-470x312It is still very early days for section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, which is likely to be a source of uncertainty for practitioners while decisions clarifying its application are awaited from specialist defamation judges and the appeal courts. This may well be having a chilling effect on potential claimants owing to the costs risks attaching to the testing of new legal boundaries. Read the rest of this entry »

Libel: Why sorry shouldn’t be the hardest word for editors – Nigel Tait and Isabella Piasecka

14 02 2015

Carter RuckThe non-denial denial has long been famous as a cringingly bad attempt to avoid blame (or telling the truth), where over-qualification either weakens the denial, or kills it completely. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” or “We have no plans [before the election] to introduce tuition fees.” Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,116 other followers