The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Table of Media Law Cases

This table sets out the recent media law cases with links to the judgments and, where applicable, the Inforrm blog posts and comments on them. The judgments can be obtained by clicking on the links – which are, where available, to the invaluable British and Irish Legal and Information Institute (Bailii) database. In the “Links” column we have inserted links to Inforrm case comments and articles about the cases and links to the useful case notes and comments provided on the other websites including those of barristers’ chambers 1 Brick Court (“1BC”) and 5 Raymond Buildings (“5RB”), the RPC Privacy Blog (“RPC”) and the UK Human Rights Blog (“UKHR”).

12 Comments

  1. Marcus Partington

    Can you please explain how Bowman is a ‘final win’ for the C?
    C was awarded £4,250 having turned down offers of £5K and then £10K. The net (or final) position is that C paid money to D in respect of costs and interest once there was a netting off of the damages and costs awarded to C and the costs awarded to D.
    Looks like a win for the D to me …

    • INFORRM

      The claimant recovered damages for defamation and so was successful – although he of course lost out on costs. In terms of the question of how many defamation cases have succeeded this year we have treated it as a “claimant” win. Any other classification would distort the statistics.

      Inforrm Editorial

      • Anna Doble

        I don’t agree. The Bowman case was never about whether damages were payable but solely quantum. Mr Bowman erred in his assessment and had to pay costs. Denoting it as a “win” distorts the stats just as much.
        Why not just use the “win” classification for full trials, and call this one a “N/A”?

  2. INFORRM

    The persuasive powers of our readers have led us to re-classify this one as N/A.

    Please let us know if there are any other comments (or cases to be included).

    Inforrm Editorial

  3. Richard Munden

    Thank you for this useful resource. Shouldn’t Ernst & Young v Coomber be a win for C, as summary disposal was granted, and Henderson v LB Hackney a win for D, as the claim was struck out?

    There are also a few more 5RB case reports on cases in the table, to which links could be added:
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Ernst–Young-and-Ors-v-Coomber-and-Ors
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Ajinomoto-Sweeteners-Europe-SAS-v-Asda-Stores-Ltd-(No-2)-(CA)
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Brady-v-Norman-(No-2)
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Hays-Plc-v-Hartley
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Fiddes-v-Channel-4-Television-Corporation–Ors-(CA)
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Berezovsky-v-Russian-State-Television–Another
    http://www.5rb.com/case/Terry-(previously-'LNS‘)-v-Persons-Unknown

  4. INFORRM

    Thank you very much for this – we have taken up your suggestions and added these links.

    Inforrm Editorial

  5. Mr Barjinder Sahota

    Hello, The researcher for this post seems to have omitted an important libel case that was stayed on the first day of trial on grounds of non-justiciability on 15 December 2010. The reinforces the caselaw on the “self denying ordinance” of secular courts from determining issues of religious disputes, developing the law from the Blake case and the recent judgement of His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Hardeep Singh. The Shergill v Purewal judgement is on Baillii today. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3610.html

    • INFORRM

      The case has just been posted in the Table of Cases.

      Inforrm

  6. hp lehofer

    May I suggest you add the Grand chamber judgment of the ECtHR in the case Centro Europa 7 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-111399 where the Court held that “in such a sensitive sector as the audiovisual media, in addition to its negative duty of non-interference the State has a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism”

    • INFORRM

      Thank, as you will have seen we have added this case and also a Case Comment

  7. Anon

    McCann/Bennett

    Is the judgement stating that Bennett’s application to vary his undertaking will be heard in a separate trial after the contempt is heard?

  8. alan m dransfield

    This latest ECHR Judgement (Magyar Helsinki Biozttsag NGO) is the savior of the FOIA/EIRA/DATA act. This will open the floodgates for FOIA. This means article 10 is the Daddy of all FOIA laws and the Dransfield Vexatious Claptrap cannot be used from this day on ie GIA/3o37/2011. It also means that the ICO /MoJ MUST revoke the 3000Vexatious decisions under the FOIA and 2500 under the EIRA. The ICO are in meldown and there should be a Public Inquiry into the Dransfield Vexatious claptrap. Elizbeth Denham and Christiopher Graham shold be locked up

Leave a Reply

© 2020 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: