The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: August 2010 (Page 1 of 2)

Reporting privacy injunctions

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”. Continue reading

Journalism, Entrapment and the Public Interest

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.  Continue reading

Law and Media Round Up – 29 August 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. Continue reading

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

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. Continue reading

Matrix Media Update – 27 August 2010 [updated]

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. Continue reading

Opinion: “Privacy in August 2010” – Mark Thomson

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. Continue reading

Case Law : Imerman v Tchenguiz

On 29 July 2010, shortly before the end of the legal term, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Imerman v Tchenguiz ([2010] EWCA Civ 908).  The case concerned privacy and confidentiality in relation to financial proceedings ancillary to  divorce.  In particular, the Court considered the controversial “Hildebrand” rules under which clients in divorce proceedings were encouraged to access documents, belonging to the other spouse, whether or not they are confidential to assist in proceedings concerning financial provision. Continue reading

Opinion: “Privacy and the Daily Telegraph” – Dominic Crossley

The Daily Telegraph began its front-page article entitled “Privacy law to stop rise in gagging orders by judges (17 August 2010)  as follows “Britain could get its first privacy law to stop judges creating one by stealth through the courts a justice minister said yesterday”.  The Justice Minister interviewed by the Telegraph is Liberal Democrat peer Lord McNally.  Very brief extracts from that interview are published in the article that spans the front page and page 2 of the newspaper. Continue reading

Welcome Back to the Inforrm Blog

Today the Inforrm blog returns from its summer break – we would like to welcome readers back to our discussions of the whole range of issues concerning media law and responsibility.   We hope that, like us, everyone has returned refreshed after their summer break.  August is a quiet month in English courts and in those of most other jurisdictions.  The “media legal” stories have been limited to a number of “silly season” stories about privacy injunctions – of which, more later in the week.  Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2023 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑