The case of Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) was a defamation claim in respect of an article in a Portuguese newspaper which alleged illegality on the part of a banker. Dingemans J held that this had not caused serious harm to the banker’s reputation in England and Wales. Further, the proceedings were an abuse of process, his reputation already having been vindicated in Portugal. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: January 2016 (Page 1 of 3)
When is it right to keep the names of parties to litigation a secret? That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in the case of R(C) v. Secretary of State for Justice ([2016] UKSC 2). The decision to allow a double-murderer to remain anonymous led to outraged headlines in the tabloids. Yet the Court reached the unanimous conclusion that this was the right approach. Why? Continue reading
At first blush, the two most recent libel cases in which the question of serious harm has been tested, yielded contradictory findings. Both cases were argued on the same day before different Judges at separate trials of preliminary issues. In Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) the court found that the Claimant had satisfied the threshold test of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. In Alvaro Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) the court found that the threshold test had not been met and further, that the claim was an abuse of process. Continue reading
It is possible to breach a person’s privacy without disseminating any information about him or her? Many theorists and judges have recognized this non-informational aspect of the privacy interest, often labelling it ‘intrusion’ or physical privacy. Continue reading
On 19 January 2016 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in R (on application of Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2016] EWCA Civ 6). The case concerned David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000. While upholding the lawfulness of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10. Continue reading
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the Act”) is becoming an increasingly important tool for those seeking to protect their privacy against intrusion by the media and private individuals. The Act was introduced to combat stalking, racial harassment, and disruption from neighbours, but ‘harassment’ is not defined in the Act and its reach is therefore in fact much wider. It has the potential to catch a range of media news-gathering activities including persistent photography, trailing, and door-stepping. Continue reading
IMPRESS, the first independent press regulator, has announced that it has submitted its application for recognition to the Press Recognition Panel and its first members. The chair of IMPRESS, Walter Merricks, gave a lecture entitled “IMPRESS the future of press regulation in the UK” at the LSE on 20 January 2016. Continue reading
The Court of Appeal has given permission to appeal to each of the three defendants against the decision of Warby J in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)). Continue reading
You are unlikely to read about it about in the mainstream press, but this week saw a major step forward for genuinely independent press regulation in the UK. The new press regulator IMPRESS (Independent Monitor for the Press) has announced that it has not only signed up a dozen publishers but that it has submitted an application for formal recognition. This will now be assessed by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), the wholly independent body established by cross-party agreement. Continue reading
The ascendancy of social media poses acute challenges for privacy. Internet-based services such as Facebook and Twitter can confer major advantages on users in terms of access to information, ease of communication, and opportunities for network-building. But the ordinary concomitant is a significant surrender of personal privacy. Participation generally entails the disclosure of, and the ceding of control over, one’s personal data. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2023 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑