Reporting privacy injunctions

31 08 2010

It was reported on Sunday 29 August 2010 that Mr Justice Kenneth Parker – the duty vacation judge (pictured right) – had, the previous day, granted a privacy injunction to an England footballer.  This appears to be the third such injunction granted during August (see our earlier post on the two previous injunctions).  The story of this “third injunction” was first reported in the Sunday Telegraph and has since appeared, on similar lines, in the “Daily Mail“, the “Guardian“, the “Independent” and the “Metro”. Read the rest of this entry »

Journalism, Entrapment and the Public Interest

30 08 2010

On Sunday the News of the World ran a sensational exposé of a Pakistan cricket agent who had taken a payment of £150,000 for entry into a “betting scam”.  The agent claimed that he was able to pre-arrange incidents – such as precisely timed “no-balls” – in a Test Match which could be the subject of bets.  Although – contrary to the headlines – the match was not being “fixed” (the particular incidents having no appreciable effect on the result), it was clear that the “News of the World” had exposed significant malpractice. The predicted “no balls” were bowled by two of the teams leading players.  Read the rest of this entry »

Inforrm Table of Cases – Revised and Updated

29 08 2010

The Table of Recent Cases which appears on the Inforrm main page has now been revised and updated.  It includes all the recent (since 1 January 2010) English media law cases in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court along with the significant cases from other jurisdictions.   We have included all the cases on which we have done case analyses or other posts. Read the rest of this entry »

Law and Media Round Up – 29 August 2010

29 08 2010

In this regular feature we draw attention to the recent law and media news and to week’s upcoming events.  Today we will deal with news and events since the beginning of August and we will resume regular weekly round ups next week.


The month of August is always a quiet one for both the media and the law.  The higher courts are on their summer vacations and, in England at least, there are only a small number of judges available to deal with urgent applications.  These have included a number of “privacy injunctions” – the latest reported today in the “Telegraph”.  These have not been “super injunctions” so their existence has been the subject of extensive press comment, discussed in a post on this blog last week by Mark Thomson.  There have also been press reports of what does seem to have been a “super-injunction” granted to golfer Colin Montgomerie last month. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Aktas v Westpac Banking, qualified privilege and cheques in Australia

28 08 2010

On 4 August 2010 the High Court of Australia gave judgment in the libel case of Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation [2010] HCA 25.  In its first libel case since April 2009, by a majority of 3:2, the Court allowed Mr Aktas’ appeal and ordered Westpac Banking Corporation to pay Aus$50,000 in damages for defamation arising from its mistaken dishonouring of his company’s cheques. Read the rest of this entry »

Matrix Media Update – 27 August 2010 [updated]

27 08 2010

This is a Media Law Update covering the past month prepared by the Legal Information Team at Matrix Chambers, which they have kindly agreed to make available to readers of Inforrm.

Latest Cases

Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908. Interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal in ancillary relief proceedings relating to Hildebrand admissibility rules. Held: there was no legal justification for permitting a spouse to retain copies of documents unlawfully obtained in breach of confidence in order to prevent the other spouse from concealing assets in ancillary relief proceedings. A spouse could apply for search and seizure, freezing, preservation and similar orders to ensure that assets were not wrongly concealed or dissipated. Read the rest of this entry »

Opinion: “Privacy in August 2010” – Mark Thomson

27 08 2010

The recent controversy over privacy injunctions and so-called “super-injunctions” was reignited this month. A few sportsmen have sought and obtained interim injunctions from the High Court.  The numerous critical descriptions of these injunctions as “super injunction” appear wrong since, in most of the cases, it appears the fact of granting of the injunction was not restrained. It also appears clear that they concerned the allegations about the sex lives of the various sportsmen. Read the rest of this entry »