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.
In order to avoid leading again with phone hacking, we begin by reporting two cases of “libel tourism”. First the Kyiv post has been successful in a “libel tourism” case brought by Continue reading
On Friday 25 February 2011 Mr Justice Vos handed down judgment in relation to various applications made in the “phone hacking” claims against the News of the World and Glenn Mulcaire by Gray and Steve Coogan. This decision, in the case of Gray v News Group Newspapers ( EWHC 349 (Ch)) is perhaps the most important so far of the various “phone hacking” judgments. Continue reading
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.
Gray v News Group  EWHC 349 (Ch) – 25 Feb 2011. Application for an order for the provision of information against Glenn Mulcaire, who in turn sought to rely on his privilege against self-incrimination. Continue reading
In Watters v Independent Star IECC 1 (03 November 2010), the first reported judgment on the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), Matthews J granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the Act (also here) that an article published by the defendant was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation. Continue reading
In the last 10 days there have been a number of hearings and key rulings about disclosure of information and documents either from the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire or from the Metropolitan Police. These have all been given after public hearings. A reserved judgment in another case is due to be handed down today. Continue reading
On 15 February 2011 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors EWCA Civ 123, a case concerning a civil claim brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the PHA”). This was a landmark piece of legislation which has a broad ambit and can encompass conduct quite different to stalking and physical harassment. In particular, it can cover harassment by the media – we have discussed this in earlier posts, here and here. The Iqbal case provided an opportunity for the Court of Appeal to consider of issues of principle arising in harassment cases. Continue reading
After representing Donal Kinsella in his recent recent record-breaking defamation award of €10 million by a Dublin jury, Joe O’Malley examines jury awards in Defamation cases
The highest jury and defamation award in the history of the State was handed down on the evening of Wednesday 17 November 2010 when eleven remaining members of an originally empanelled twelve member jury awarded Donal Kinsella Continue reading
Should internet publications be subject to pre-suit resolution? What about a US-style Federal Appeals Court to review all freedom of speech of decisions? New South Wales District Court Judge Judith Gibson argues the case for reform in a paper she delivered on 29 November 2010 to the Intellectual Property, Media and Communications Law Roundtable held at UTS. The paper originally published by the Gazette of Law and Journalism Part 1 of the paper was posted on 22 February 2011.
LAW REFORM PROPOSALS – SOME NEW IDEAS
As is set out below, I have set out three areas for discussion of reforms that will not require any amendment to the uniform legislation, but which are aimed at reducing the number of cases before the courts to take the pressure off the court system and enable a review of some long-term reforms. Continue reading
In last week’s judgment in the case of Bou Malhab v Diffusion Métromedia CMR Inc (2011 SCC 9) the Supreme Court of Canada refused to permit a “class action” for libel by Arabic and Creole speaking Montreal taxi drivers who had been subjected to racist and abusive coments by Andre Arthur, a “shock jock” (turned MP)(pictured right) in the course of a radio broadcast. Continue reading
In Munim Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions EWHC 247 (Admin) the High Court ruled that prosecution of a group of people who had shouted slogans, including, “burn in hell”, “baby killers” and “rapists” at a parade of British soldiers, was not a breach of their right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Continue reading