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 5RB and the UK Human Rights Blog.
Table of Media Law Cases
12 Comments
20 Pingbacks
- Inforrm Blog – New Feature: Table of Cases « Inforrm's Blog
- Inforrm Table of Cases – Revised and Updated « Inforrm's Blog
- Law and Media Round Up – 11 October 2010 « Inforrm's Blog
- Inforrm – Table of Recent Cases Updated « Inforrm's Blog
- Inforrm Blog Resources: improved Tables of Cases « Inforrm's Blog
- Law and Media Round Up – 3 October 2011 « Inforrm's Blog
- Media Law Cases: Survey of the First Legal Term of 2012 « Inforrm's Blog
- Law and Media Round Up – 16 April 2012 « Inforrm's Blog
- IBC Conference: Twelve months of defamation and privacy in England and Wales – Judith Townend « Inforrm's Blog
- A dearth of data about defamation cases in England & Wales | Media law and ethics
- A dearth of data about defamation cases in England and Wales – Judith Townend « Inforrm's Blog
- Inforrm Blog Resources: new and improved Tables of Cases « Inforrm's Blog
- Table of Media Law Cases | Media Law | Scoop.it
- Inforrm Blog – Happy Third Birthday « Inforrm's Blog
- SILENCING DISSENT: a Joined Up Saga of Global Intimidation | We Who Oppose Deception
- Law and Media Review of the Legal Year 2012/13 | Media law and ethics
- Are reports of defamation’s death greatly exaggerated? | LSE Media Policy Project
- Inforrm: Beginning of Easter Break | Inforrm's Blog
- Inforrm: Beginning of Easter Break – CCTV Installer Near Mear
- Responsible Media blog’s handy link to judgments | Media law matters (and so do ethics)
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 …
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
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”?
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
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
Thank you very much for this – we have taken up your suggestions and added these links.
Inforrm Editorial
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
The case has just been posted in the Table of Cases.
Inforrm
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”
Thank, as you will have seen we have added this case and also a Case Comment
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?
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