Case Law, Australia: Defteros v Google Inc, Melbourne defamation lawyer loses to Google – Justin Castelan

14 05 2017

Google Australia Pty Ltd – it looks like Google, smells like Google and it very much tries to act like it is not Google. For several years there have been several people who have all tried to sue Google Australia or Google New Zealand or Google UK, perhaps trying to get a local defendant when it is Google Incin America that produces the search results which they complain about. Read the rest of this entry »





News: Mexican Attorney Aurora Pierdant receives apology and libel damages from the Guardian – Persephone Bridgman Baker

10 05 2017

A Statement in Open Court [pdf] has been read on behalf of Ms Aurora Pierdant, an experienced lawyer practising in Mexico, who alongside her brother, Ricardo Pierdant, received a public apology, libel damages and costs after an inaccurate and defamatory article was published in the Guardian on 9 August 2016. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Zahawi v Press TV, Fake News: memes, terrorism and jurisdiction – Susan Aslan

9 05 2017

This libel claim was brought by Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative MP for Stratford-on-Avon against Press TV, the First Defendant, an English language news and documentary network based in Iran. It is affiliated with the State owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.  The Second Defendant is a UK Limited company.  Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a claimant lawyer’s perspective – Nigel Tait

14 04 2017

There is an old saying that when a woman is forced to choose between two men, she opts for the third, and so it is with the Supreme Court’s decision in Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood, Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd [2017] UKSC 33. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a response to Keith Mathieson from a lawyer who acts for both claimants and defendants – Jonathan Coad

13 04 2017

In his piece on Inforrm yesterday, Keith Mathieson begins by describing the use of CFAs in cases against the media as a “scandal”. Evidently the Supreme Court did not agree with him – unanimously. One of the titles for whom he acts has already described judges with whom they disagree as “Enemies of the people”, so I suppose the judges can count themselves lucky not to have been attacked in similar terms. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a defence lawyer’s perspective – Keith Mathieson

12 04 2017

The use of CFAs in cases against the media had become a scandal long before this appeal was heard.  A mechanism intended to provide access to justice had become a gravy train for claimant lawyers.  As claimant lawyers know, the mere threat of a CFA and ATE insurance could be used to bulldoze a media company into submission. Read the rest of this entry »





CFAs and ATE premiums out of the running in freedom of expression cases – Nicola Cain

11 04 2017

In the case of Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood; Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd; and, Frost and others v MGN Ltd ([2017] UKSC 33), the defendant media organisations each brought an appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the obligation that they pay additional liabilities in cases engaging their right to freedom of expression. Read the rest of this entry »