The Court of Appeal yesterday discharged a super-injunction which had preventing reference to a privacy injunction obtained by Howard Donald of “Take That”. The decision, Ntuli v Donald ([2010] EWCA Civ 1276) has received widespread coverage in the media – with over 200 items picked up by “Google News”. Much of this coverage focused on the “super-injunction” and anonymity aspects of the case – although this occupied only 14 of the 59 paragraphs of the judgment. Most of the judgment was devoted to consideration – and rejection – of the argument that the injunction should not have been granted at all.
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: November 2010 (Page 3 of 5)
The right to privacy is sometimes said to include a right to “informational autonomy”, a person’s right to decide what information about themselves will be disclosed and to whom. However, what a person chooses to disclose at one stage of their life or to one group of acquaintances may not be something which they wish to be generally available or available later on. The advent of electronic databases and, more recently, the internet has made this problem particularly acute. A huge amount of personal data about a large proportion of the population – particularly those under 40 – is publicly accessible. Should the right to privacy include a right to control over this kind of information? Continue reading
In this regular feature we draw attention to the last week’s law and media news and next week’s upcoming events. If readers have any news or events which they would like to draw attention to please add them by way of comments on this post. Continue reading
This is a paper which was given at the City University Forum on “Re-Framing Libel” on 4 November 2010.
Introduction
Libel practitioners are increasingly partisan. Most firms are now seen, and market themselves, as either “Claimant” or “Publisher/Defendant” firms. Our libel work at Simons Muirhead & Burton is split almost down the middle. We believe that our clients’ best interests are served by the experience we have gained in acting for both sides. We have no generic interest in exclusively promoting the interest of one side over the other. Continue reading
There have been a number of stories in the press this week about a “libel threat” to a plastic surgeon “who cast doubt on the effectiveness of a £125 “boob job” cream“. Rodial, the manufacturers of the cream – sold under the name “Boob Job” – claimed that it “provided a fast and safe alternative to expensive and painful breast enlargement surgery“. It was said that “with the Boob Job at home treatment you can discreetly but dramatically increase your bust size by two and half centimetres“. This gives rise to a number of obvious questions. Some of these were raised an article on 30 September 2010 in the “Daily Mail”. Dr Dalia Nield, a consultant plastic surgeon at the London Clinic said, perhaps unsurprisingly, that it was ‘highly unlikely’ that the cream would increase a woman’s bust size and questioned the amount of information provided by Rodial.
This is a Media Law Update covering the last week prepared by the Legal Information Team at Matrix Chambers, which they have kindly agreed to make available to readers of Inforrm.
Latest Cases
McLaughlin & Ors v Lambeth London Borough Council & Anor [2010] EWHC 2726 (QB). QBD – 2 Nov 2010. Considers whether the rule in Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, which prevents public authorities from suing in libel – to allow uninhibited criticism of government institutions – has the effect of preventing libel actions being taken by individual managers and employees of those institutions. Continue reading
A two stream libel regime with most cases heard in the County Court or a tribunal, would reduce complexity and costs, argue Professor Alastair Mullis, from the University of East Anglia, and Dr Andrew Scott from the London School of Economics. Continue reading
On Wednesday 10November 2010, judgment was handed down in the case of Cairns v Modi [2010] EWHC 2859 (QB). It is an interesting and topical decision since it deals with a claim brought by cricketer Chris Cairns, who is based abroad, against Lalit Modi, based in India, in respect of publications including allegations of match fixing on a cricket website Cricinfo owned by ESPN and on the defendant’s Twitter site.
This is an edited version of a paper given to the City University Forum on “Re-Framing Libel” on 4 November 2010.
Libel law has endured quite an assault over the last 18 months. Enormous academic, media and political resources have been occupied in illustrating its perceived weakness and dangers. So far, nothing much has changed, which is a relief to those who by their day-to-day experience of practising libel law could see the folly and self interest in much of the criticism and knee-jerk counter-measures. Continue reading
It has been reported that Scottish ministers are to consult on a reform of the law of defamation to permit claims to be brought on behalf of the dead. The consultation is set to be launched before the end of the year. A spokesman at Scotland’s Justice Department said that the Government had no view on whether a change was necessary of desirable: “We have said that we will still be a very very long way away from changing the law on this“. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑