The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Category: Legal (Page 15 of 175)

Law and Media Round Up – 6 May 2024

Sir David Davis MP has tabled a number of far reaching amendments [pdf] to the  Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill [pdf] which returns to the House of Commons for its Committee Stage on 8 May 2024.  These include the removal of the requirement to prove intention and a provision for the award of damages to a defendant against whom a SLAPP claim is brought.  Inforrm had a post about the Bill last week. Continue reading

There are obvious problems with the SLAPPs Bill, but what should be done about SLAPPs? – Mark Hanna

It took just two years for the idea of an anti-SLAPP statute to go from a grassroots movement in the UK to its realisation in legislation. There are obvious problems with the resulting anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“ECCTA”), and the more general “SLAPPs Bill”, currently at the Committee Stage. Both are overinclusive in their definition of “SLAPPs”, and the burden they place on claimants is likely to lead to problems with access to justice. But what should be done about SLAPPs? Continue reading

Law and Media Round Up – 15 April 2024

A letter co-ordinated by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition to Justice Secretary Alex Chalk seeks an amendment to the anti-SLAPP bill making its way through Parliament. The letter, signed by editors from publishers like The Times, Guardian and Daily Mail, requests that an objective test be used to determine the intent of the claimant, rather than the subjective test currently proposed. Continue reading

Anonymisation of civil judgments: a routine failure to follow open justice rules – Paul Magrath

A statistical analysis of the civil High Court judgments published in 2023 showed that, out of 116 cases where one or more parties had been anonymised, 67 (or nearly 60%) did not have a corresponding anonymisation order published on the Judiciary website. While around half of these (34) did make some reference to anonymity or reporting restrictions in the judgment itself, the remainder (33) made no such reference. Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑