The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
I will begin with the myth. Claimant libel lawyers win almost every libel case they bring and charge double their fees which must be paid by the Defendant, usually a media organisation.
The reality is very different as I will go on to explain.
Background
Prior to 1995 conditional fee agreements (CFAs) were unlawful and contrary to public policy. CFAs were first made enforceable under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, brought into effect in 1995. Continue reading
On Tuesday the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights heard the application in the case of Mosley v United Kingdom. At the hearing oral submissions were presented by Lord Pannick QC on behalf of the applicant, Mr Max Mosley, and by James Eadie QC on behalf of the United Kingdom government. In addition, the Court also received written submissions from the parties and from Geoffrey Robertson QC, Heather Rogers QC and Lord Lester QC on behalf of various media interveners. Continue reading
Mr President, members of the Court:
The News of the World newspaper sells about 2.8 million copies on an average Sunday, and it is read by about 15% of the adult population of the United Kingdom.
It trades in buying and then selling the intimate sexual secrets of the rich and famous. Continue reading
Could libel reform have a damaging impact on the public’s access to justice? This was one of the key questions to emerge last night from ‘Libel Reform: in the public’s interest?’, a public debate organised by Gray’s Inn in association with the Media Standards Trust and INFORRM. Continue reading
When I read Anthony Lester’s bill back in May, my first thought was that this is a bill for journalists. A bill for the media.
This was something he explicitly rebutted back in August when he spoke to Ian Burrell for the Independent.
“This is not a Bill for the media, I want to emphasise that. It’s a Bill for those who are consumers of the media: the citizens, the people.” Continue reading
In previous posts we have considered the final hearings in defamation claims in 2010 – and the decline in the number of trials. But only a small proportion of defamation cases are actually dealt with at hearings or trials. There are between 200 and 300 defamation claims commenced each year – 259 in 2008 and 298 in 2009 (see RPC’s analysis and our post commenting on it) – but only 21 were disposed of at hearings. The question arises as to what happened to the other 200 odd claims which, it seems likely, would have been disposed of in 2010? Continue reading
Following Nick Clegg’s announcement of a draft Defamation Bill to be published in the Spring, in response to unprecedented pressure from the media and following what has been one of the most successful US lobbying campaigns since that initiated by the tobacco industry some years ago, it will be interesting to see the reaction to what has been a totally unjustified clamour for reform. Continue reading
The libel reform debate has tended to focus on the interests of journalists, scientists, bloggers and other potential defendants to libel claims. There is obviously strong public interest in the free flow of information. Journalists must be able to investigate and report on the powerful, scientific developments require free and open debate, NGOs must be able to campaign on issues of public interest. There is, however, a countervailing public interest in truth and accuracy. The difficult question is how to get the balance right. 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.
News
On Tuesday 11 January 2010, the Court of Human Rights will hear Max Mosley’s application against the United Kingdom in which he contends that positive obligation under Article 8 means that there should be a legal requirement that the press notify individuals in advance if their privacy is invaded. The Court’s Press Release is here.
The Libel Reform Campaign is now in its second year. It has attracted widespread support with 50,000 signatures on its petition and the Coalition Government now committed to a Defamation Bill to “rebalance” free expression and the right to reputation. As regular readers will know, Inforrm has been critical of a number of the arguments put forward by the campaign (see our posts on the burden of proof, a damages cap, the multiple publication rule and on companies suing for libel). Continue reading
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑