Press Regulation: We are only one signature away from a revolution in access to justice – Brian Cathcart

4 01 2018

It is a longstanding national scandal that, although in principle the law protects us against libel and breach of privacy by news publishers, with rare exceptions those laws work only for the rich. The vast majority of people in Britain simply can’t afford to go to court to uphold their right not to be lied about and and their right to have a private life. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Pannu v Carter, Taxi driver’s slander case fails over special damages issue – Media Lawyer

30 12 2017

In the case of Pannu v Carter ([2017] EWHC 3270 (QB)) a taxi-driver failed in a bid to sue a partner in a competitor firm for slander because he was unable to demonstrate that he had suffered special damage – a measurable financial loss – as a result of the alleged publication. Read the rest of this entry »





Media and Law: Overview of Defamation, Privacy and other Media Cases in 2017 [updated]

29 12 2017

In 2017 the media courts heard more defamation trials and privacy injunctions than in either of the previous two years. The claimants succeeded in 60% of the defamation trials and in 62% of the injunction applications. Last year also saw an increased number of appeal judgments in media law cases. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: David v Hosany, Cogent evidence required to defeat the qualified privilege defence – Tom Double

16 12 2017

In the case of David v Hosany [2017] EWHC 2787 (QB), His Honour Judge Moloney QC considered a libel claim brought by the claimant, a Governor of the East London Foundation NHS Trust, in respect of three publications by the defendant, another Governor of the same Trust. These publications alleged that the claimant had intimidated and harassed the defendant, with two of the publications containing allegations of sexual harassment. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Comment: Serafin v. Malkiewicz, “Unbounded self confidence and lack of judgment” results in failed libel action – Persephone Bridgman Baker

5 12 2017

The case of Serafin v. Malkiewicz & Ors [2017] EWHC 2992 (QB) is a libel claim relating to an article which made serious imputations of the ethics of the Claimant, alleging variously that he was dishonest and fraudulent, wormed his way into charitable institutions under the guise of altruism and carried out work for his own gain, and behaved questionably in his conduct with women. Read the rest of this entry »





Are we asking too much from defamation law? Reputation systems, ADR, Industry Regulation and other Extra-Judicial Possibilities for Protecting Reputation in the Internet Age: Proposal for Reform – Emily Laidlaw

22 11 2017

In an earlier post, Hilary Young and I outlined our proposal to the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) for reform of intermediary liability and the meaning of publication in defamation law. Read the rest of this entry »





Report to the Law Commission of Ontario: Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation – Proposals for Statutory Reform – Emily Laidlaw and Hilary Young

19 11 2017

The Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) is in the midst of a project to reform defamation law in light of the internet age. As part of its work, we were commissioned to write a paper with recommendations for reform on the topic of intermediary liability and the meaning of publication in defamation law. Read the rest of this entry »