Now that the legal term has ended, Inforrm is taking a winter break for a few weeks to allow the editorial team to relax. We will have a some occasional posts over the next fortnight but the full normal service will not be resumed until the second week of January 2017.
It has been another great year for views and posts on the Inforrm blog. We have had over 450,000 page views this year, more than half from the UK with the United States, Australia, Hong Kong and Ireland making up the rest of the top five. We have had over 400 posts this year on a very wide variety of media and legal topics from authors from all areas of media law and all round the world.
Many thanks to all our readers for following the blog and our twitter feed. And thank you for the many positive comments we have had (and the constructive negative ones). Thanks also to everyone who has written for the blog.
As we have said many times before, Inforrm is intended to be a forum for debate and we welcome contributions from all points of view about issues concerning “media and law”. We can be contacted via the email address on the home page.
The top 10 posts of 2016 were as follows (in descending order)
- Case Law: PJS v News Group Newspapers, Court of Appeal grants privacy injunction – Sara Mansoori and Aidan Wills
- How to avoid defamation – Steven Price
- News: Daily Mail loses Human Rights Act challenge to CFA success fees and insurance premiums
- Defamation Act 2013: A Summary and Overview – Iain Wilson and Max Campbell
- Media and Information Cases before the Appellate and European Courts in 2016 [Updated3]
- News: EU agrees final text of General Data Protection Regulation
- Case Law: Gulati v MGN Ltd, A landmark decision on the quantum of privacy damages – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori
- Case Law, Strasbourg: Barbulescu v Romania, Surveillance of Internet Usage in the Workplace – Kate Richmond
- Defamation Act 2013: The public interest defence and digital communications – Jacob Rowbottom
- Case Law: Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd, “serious harm to reputation” once again established by inference – Hugh Tomlinson QC