Yesterday was the final day of the high profile libel trial in which Brexit supporting millionaire Arron Banks is suing investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr for a libel arising out of a 2018 Ted Talk. The case of Banks v Cadwalladr has been heard over 5 days in Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice by Mrs Justice Steyn. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Category: Libel (Page 1 of 91)
On, 17 January 2002, the second day of the libel trial in the case of Banks v Cadwalladr, Mrs Justice Steyn heard evidence from both the claimant and the defendant. The cross-examination of the claimant, Arron Banks, by Gavin Millar QC concluded in the morning. The afternoon was taken up by the beginning of what promises to be a lengthy cross-examination of the defendant, Carole Cadwalladr, by William McCormick QC. Continue reading
The trial in the libel case of Banks v Cadwalladr began on Friday before Mrs Justice Steyn. The Judge heard opening submissions from counsel for the claimant and the defendant and Mr Banks gave evidence and was cross-examined. His evidence will continue on Monday. Continue reading
The first high profile libel trial of 2022 begins today before Mrs Justice Steyn in Court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The controversial multi millionaire Brexiteer, Arron Banks, is suing investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr, for libel. Continue reading
Northern Ireland has never shown much enthusiasm for the Defamation Act 2013. When it first came on the agenda for debate there, the Finance Minister at the time declined to table it and declared that ‘Northern Ireland had no plans to review its defamation law’. However, it is only now that the Northern Ireland Assembly has been formally tasked with contemplating similar reform (see the Northern Ireland Defamation Bill) that the full scale of hostility towards the 2013 Act has come to the fore. Continue reading
It is normally defamatory to allege that a party has committed a serious crime. However many publishees will choose to publicly rebut an allegation, accuse the publisher of dishonesty and/or make counter-allegations, rather than sue for libel. But does this itself not put the accused at risk of being sued for defamation themselves? Continue reading
It is rare in Belgium for people who take part in the public debate, such as journalists and academics, to have to defend themselves in criminal court in a private prosecution for defamation. Three times in a row, this type of criminal procedure has recently proven to have little or no chance of success and mainly serves to legally harass the defendant. Continue reading
Inforrm reported on a large number of defamation cases from around the world in 2020. Following my widely read posts on 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 defamation cases, this is my personal selection of the most legally and factually interesting cases from England, Australia and Canada from the past year. Continue reading
In my recent post on the Malkiewicz v UK application, I noted two ideas for reducing exorbitant cost of defamation proceedings. One was to allow publication proceedings to be heard in the County Courts, taking advantage of the costs limitations imposed by the ‘small claims’ and ‘fast track’ procedural rules. Alternatively, a new specialist court or tribunal could handle such claims. Continue reading
It has long been accepted that the eye-watering costs of English libel litigation present a double ‘chill.’ On the one hand, the fear of having to defend a libel action means that many public interest news stories are spiked or watered down before publication. Meanwhile, when an ordinary person discovers that a lie has been published about them in a national newspaper, the cost of seeking redress is prohibitive. Bringing or defending a claim immediately puts a party on the hook for tens of thousands of pounds. If the case goes to trial then you risk paying a six-figure sum. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2022 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑