The case of ZAM v CFW ([2011] EWHC 476 (QB)) has a number of unusual and interesting features. Mr Justice Tugendhat granted an interim injunction to restrain the publication of defamatory allegations – no misuse of private information was relied on. An injunction was granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to prevent harassment by defamatory publications. Most interestingly, the judge made an order for anonymisation not to protect privacy rights but, in substance, to protect the Article 8 reputation rights of the claimant. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: March 2011 (Page 5 of 6)
The ramification of the decision in Ehrenfeld v Bin Mahfouz ([2005] EWHC 1156 (QB)) are still continuing to be felt both at home and abroad. Following the judgment of Mr Justice Eady in 2005, swift legislative changes were put in place in the US to halt “libel tourism”, initially at a State level and then, in October last year, at a Federal level. In the UK, a widely reported statement made during the election campaign by Nick Clegg claimed that “libel tourism is making a mockery of British justice”. Continue reading
News
We lead with the Hardeep Singh case. The claim against him by His Holiness Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj was finally dismissed by the Court of Appeal when the claimant failed to lodge the £200,000 security for costs. Continue reading
Online publishers have been given a wake-up call following a recent judgment on contempt of court. In Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd & News Group Newspapers Ltd. ([2011] EWHC 418 (Admin)) The Sun and Daily Mail newspapers had published online a photograph of a defendant in a murder trial showing him posing with a gun. Continue reading
This is a Media and Information 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
Allen v Grimsby Telegraph [2011] EWHC 406 (QB) – 2 Mar 2011. Coulson J struck out an application for an anonymity order by an individual who had been made the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. Continue reading
The RPC Privacy Blog has a post about an interview in the Financial Times where Max Mosley, challenges the notion that there might be a public interest in exposing hypocrisy. The interviewer asks Mr Mosley whether people in the public eye are role models and therefore have a duty to behave in a certain way. Mr Mosley replies: Continue reading
The former Labour Deputy Leader and police judicial review claimant Lord Prescott yesterday used a House of Lords debate about the proposed News Corporation/BSkyB merger to allege that the phone hacking investigation had spread beyond the “News of the World” to other newspapers owned by Mr Rupert Murdoch’s companies. Continue reading
Snyder v. Phelps (09-751), 2 March 2011, United States Supreme Court. A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, in which it upheld the rights of a radical anti-gay Christian group to protest at military funerals, provides a useful opportunity to compare free speech protections here to those provided over the pond. Continue reading
The claimant was a convicted sex offender. On 20 April 2010 the Chief Constable of Humberside Police made an application for a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (“SOPO”) against him. On 28 April 2010, the District Judge had made an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 banning publication of the claimant’s address but made no order in relation to his name. The SOPO was made at a hearing on 8 November 2010. An order was sought banning the publication of the claimant’s name. Continue reading
In the recent case of G.D. v. Bernard Kenny and The Hudson County Democratic Organization, Inc. the New Jersey Supreme Court considered the difficult issue of the effect of “expungement” or “rehabilitation” of convicted criminals on libel and privacy claims. The case concerned a libel claim which arose out of a State Senate election in New Jersey. During the campaign the opponents of one candidate issued campaign flyers criticizing him for previously hiring a person with a criminal conviction, the plaintiff G.D. One campaign flyer stated that G.D. was “a DRUG DEALER who went to JAIL for FIVE YEARS for selling coke near a public school.” Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑