Law and Media, Summary Summer Round Up – 15 September 2014

As summer draws to a close, this is the third of our Summary Summer Round Ups (the first was published on 11 August 2014 and the second on 25 August 2014) to draw the attention of readers to interesting news stories, events and cases over the past three weeks.

• On 3 September 2014 the Australian Law Commission released its report “Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era [pdf]”. It recommends that a statutory cause of action for serious invasion of privacy be introduced (there is a Summary Report here [pdf]).  Bearing in mind the influence of the Murdoch press on the new Australian government it seems inevitable that these recommendations will be rejected.
• On 4 September 2014, the Information Commissioner published his guidance on ‘Data Protection and Journalism: A Guide for the Media’. There is a post summarising the guidance on the Panopticon Blog.
• On 8 September 2014 the discredited Press Complaints Commission closed down and was replaced by the “Independent Press Standards Organisation” –operating from the same offices, with (it appears) the same staff.  In an interview with the Press Gazette IPSO Chairman, Sir Alan Moses, admitted it was not Leveson compliant but insisted it would be independent.   We had a post by Brian Cathcart on the history of IPSO.  Roy Greenslade had a post “Why Peter Wright should not be sitting on Ipso’s complaints body”.
• On 9 September 2014, the technology company Quindell plc announced that it had obtained a default judgment in its favour in its libel action against Gotham City Research LLP. Some £900m was wiped off the value of the company in April 2014 when Gotham City Research issued a report questioning Quindell’s prospects. The company called the comments “highly defamatory and deliberately misrepresentative” and issued libel proceedings.  The default judgment was widely reported the financial press: including the Financial Times,  the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph.
• On 10 and 11 September 2014 the PCC – speaking from beyond the grave – published four adjudications. It upheld complaints under clauses 1 and 9 against the Daily Telegraph and Best magazine. There were reports in the Press Gazette and on the Greenslade blog on the Daily Telegraph adjudication. Complaints against the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian were not upheld.  There was a Press Gazette report on the Guardian adjudication and one on the Greenslade blog. The PCC found that there was sufficient remedial action in relation to complaints against the New Statesman and the Daily Telegraph.  The latter complaint concerned an article by David Cameron and was the subject of a post on the Greenslade blog.
• On 11 September 2014, the Administrative Court (Thomas LCJ and Wilkie J) handed down judgment in the case of Brett v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin) – finding that the former Times in house lawyer had recklessly (rather than “knowingly”) misled the court in the “Nightjack” case. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. There was a report in the Guardian although, curiously, not in the Times.
• On 12 September 2014 the CPS announced that the former New Zealand cricketer, Chris Cairns, will be charged with perjury in relation to evidence which he gave in the libel trial of Cairns v Modi ([2012] EWHC 756 (QB)).
• There have been no judgments handed down in England and Wales over the past fortnight but there is some case law from other jurisdictions:
  • Popat v MacLennan 2014 BCSC 1601 – libel action based on defamatory email dismissed at a summary trial as defences of truth and qualified privilege made out.
  • Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club [2014] NSWCA 288. The appeals brought  by sport scientist Stephen Dank over the dismissal of his defamation claims against the Cronulla rugby league club, its former boss and a journalist were dismissed. There is a report in the Australian.
  • Duval v Clift [2014] NZHC 1950. The High Court dismissed a million dollar action for breach of contract and defamation.
  • Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221. The High Court held that the notorious blogger “Whale Oil” was a journalist and was, therefore, entitled to source protection in principle – although, on the facts, he was required to disclose his sources.  There was a public interest in disclosure. The decision is noted on the Media Law Journal blog – which had a post about the case on 22 August 2014.
• There have been a number of articles and posts discussing the decision in Cooke v MGN.
  • There was a post by Polly Wilkins on the Schillings website, “Defamation Act: Establishing serious harm”
  • There was a briefing on the Farrer & Co, website by Alicia Mendonca, “First Judgment under the new Defamation Act”.
  • There was a post on the Brett Wilson website, “Serious harm: the new hurdle in defamation cases”.
  • Finally, we had a post from Oliver Fetiveau, “Defamation Act 2013: Serious Harm, a win for the press?”
• Finally, some resources and articles:
  • Hilary Young, “Rethinking Canadian Defamation Law as Applied to Corporate Plaintiffs” (2013) 46 UBC L Rev 529, SSRN.
  • F J Zuiderveen Borgesius, “Google Spain v Gonzalez: Did the Court Forget about Freedom of Expression?”, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2014, SSRN.
  • Joel R Reidenberg, “Privacy in Public”, (2014) 69 University of Miami Law Review, Forthcoming, SSRN.
  • The MLDI has an article “Explaining the Issues: False News” dealing with the way in which publishing is criminalised using “false news” laws.

The top 5 posts on Inforrm this past week were

• Case Law, Luxembourg: Deckmyn v Vandersteen, Court broadens concept of parody, and returns the hot potatoes to the national court – Dirk Voorhoof and Inger Høedt-Rasmussen
• Faking Change: a brief history of IPSO – Brian Cathcart
• Defamation Act 2013: Serious Harm, a win for the press? – Oliver Fetiveau
• Can Newspapers Convince the Public IPSO Is Not a ‘Sham’? – Martin Moore
• The Monstering of a 20 year Romany Gypsy cleaner by the press – Mike Doherty