The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Michaelmas Term: Upcoming Media Law Trials and Appeals [Updated 3]

Royal CourtsThe new legal term – Michaelmas – started on 1 October and will end on 19 December 2013.  With the invaluable assistance of Mr Benjamin Pell we have prepared a list of the upcoming defamation and privacy trials and appeals.  We would be grateful to readers for information about any other listed or pending cases.  We will then update this post.

There appear to be only four three “judge alone” defamation trials listed this term – one of which was discontinued on the first day.  They are as follows:

  • Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Vetplus Ltd & anr, began before Simon J on 7 October 2013 and is listed for 10 days. This case was discontinued on 7 October 2013 [Update2]
  • Barrett v Hackney Borough Council, listed for 21 October 2013.  This case has settled [Update]
  • Seok v Tong, listed for 28 October with a time estimate of 3-5 days.
  • Desmond v Healey, 9 December 2013, with a time estimate of 3-4 days.

There is no jury trial listed for this term.  The next one listed is the case of Hayward v Associated Newspapers, due to be heard 10 January 2014 with a time estimate of 10 days.  There was a news story about the case in the “Press Gazette”.  This case has now settled – Associated Newspapers have agreed to pay “substantial damages” to the Claimant.

There are no privacy trials listed for Michaelmas Term.

The appeal in the case of Miller v Associated Newspapers is listed on 9 or 10 December 2013 (see EWCA Case Tracker).

The following appeals are pending before the Court of Appeal

There is also a pending application for permission to appeal in the case of Cruddas v Calvert (see EWCA Case Tracker).

2 Comments

  1. Godwin Busuttil

    It appears that you can draw a line through Norbook v Vetplus too – the claimant discontinued:

    NORBROOK LABORATORIES LTD v VETPLUS LTD & ANOR (2013)
    http://www.lawtel.com/MyLawtel/Documents/AC9401407
    A discontinuing claimant failed to show any change of circumstances or unreasonable conduct by the defendants which would displace the presumption in CPR r.38.6 that it should pay the defendants’ costs.
    CIVIL PROCEDURE – COSTS (LTL) – PHARMACEUTICALS (LTL) – DEFAMATION QBD (Simon J) 07/10/2013
    References:
    LTL 7/10/2013 EXTEMPORE
    Document No.: Case Law – AC9401407

    • INFORRM

      Thank you, we have updated the post

Leave a Reply

© 2020 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: