In the case of JRV & ARC v BRG [2023] EWHC 2238 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie granted an interim privacy injunction preventing the publication of information about an extra-marital affair. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
In the case of JRV & ARC v BRG [2023] EWHC 2238 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie granted an interim privacy injunction preventing the publication of information about an extra-marital affair. Continue reading
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s ‘supervisory authority’, as required by the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) (superseded by the EU General Data Protection Regulation and later the UK General Data Protection Regulation) on all matters concerning personal data. Continue reading
There has long been a tension between the principles of open justice and the desire of parties litigating sensitive matters to keep their identity, parts of the litigation, or even the fact of the litigation itself, private. The default position for almost all civil litigation is that (i) parties are named in proceedings, (ii) non-parties (i.e. members of the public) can obtain copies of core documents from the court, and (iii) hearings are conducted in ‘open’ court (i.e. the public may observe). Continue reading
The question of how much leeway a litigant-in-person should get when it comes to compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) and court orders is a long-argued and fraught one. The concept of litigants-in-person being treated in the same way as those professionally represented has been eroded over time with concessions here and indulgences there. Continue reading
Data is a commodity, with businesses buying and selling huge amounts of it every day. Generally, the personal data sold is authorised by the individuals to which it relates (often unwittingly by a waiver never read in a thrice-removed hyperlink alongside “accept cookies” or “I agree to these terms and conditions”). Continue reading
Section 13(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 allows a Court to order that a non-party to cease communicating a defendant’s defamatory statement. Such an order can be made against a website operator, requiring them to remove the statement (section 13(a)), or any person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the defamatory who is distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the statement (section 13(b)). Such orders are made after a claimant has obtained judgment. Continue reading
On 22 July 2021, Mr Justice Nicklin handed down judgment in the Hijazi v Yaxley defamation proceedings [2021] EWHC 2008 (QB) (Yaxley-Lennon is popularly known by his pseudonym, Tommy Robinson). Continue reading
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑