“Interim Injunctions and the overlap between privacy and libel”, Part 2: Godwin Busuttil and Patrick McCafferty

16 07 2010

This is the concluding part of this two part post.  The first part was published on 14 July 2010

The focus of the court in Terry on the question of what the claim was ‘really’ about—misuse of private information or protection of reputation—with a view to determining which set of rules governing the grant or refusal of interim injunctive relief was applicable, appears to us to be unsatisfactory. It places a premium on specialist knowledge and clever drafting: on whether an applicant can formulate the evidence in the right way to get the desired result. It also seems to us to invite judicial idiosyncrasy—the question of which set of rules prevails being dependent upon whether the particular judge hearing the application is disposed to take the claim at face value or to look beneath the surface—and as such is a recipe for uncertainty. This does not seem desirable in the interests of justice. Read the rest of this entry »





US Freedom of Expression and Media Law Roundup 15 July 2010

16 07 2010

The Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved a Bill intended to stop federal courts from recognising or enforcing foreign judgments in defamation cases it assesses as being inconsistent with the First Amendment.  The “SPEECH” Act – Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act – now has to be approved by the full Senate, before moving on to the House of Representatives.  There is a report of this decision of the Committee in the Guardian and on the First Amendment Center website.   The bill appears to be largely symbolic in its effect as the Federal Courts already refuse to enforce such awards as a matter of public policy. Read the rest of this entry »