On 11 July 2023, on the News Agents podcast, broadcaster Jon Sopel asked whether The Sun could be facing “the mother of all libel claims” for publishing allegations against a then unnamed BBC presenter. On 13 July 2023, Vicky Flind confirmed that her husband Huw Edwards was the broadcaster in question. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Brett Wilson Media and Communications Law Blog (Page 1 of 2)
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
Three cases heard in the past year in the High Court – George v Cannell [2021] EWHC 2988 (QB), Parris v Ajayi [2021] EWHC 285 (QB) and Kostakopolou v University of Warwick and others [2021] EWHC 3454 (QB) – have raised some of the difficulties confronting claimants who wish to bring a defamation claim in relation to publications made to or by an employer. In this blog post, we look at some of the issues that may arise in claims that have their origins in the workplace. Continue reading
Here we are again. The press doesn’t like us having private lives and the government doesn’t like judges making decisions it disagrees with. These two angsts collided recently following the Court of Appeal’s decision in HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1810. Something, we are told, needs to be done. The answer apparently is (yet again) to abolish the Human Rights Act 1998 and introduce a system whereby the government can review and nullify the effect of binding court decisions. Continue reading
In Sube & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 1125, Warby J (as he then was) distilled several points that had arisen from the limited number of authorities that have addressed claims for harassment by publication to the world at large (hereinafter simply referred to as ‘harassment by publication’). 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
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
On 12 October 2021, Oxford County Court handed down judgment in Fairhurst v Woodard (Case No: G00MK161). A dispute between neighbours over the use of cameras for security purposes, the case gave rise to successful claims in harassment and data protection, and offers an important note of caution for those looking to install surveillance systems to protect their homes. 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
Recent Judgments
© 2023 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑