The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Tag: Brett Wilson (Page 1 of 3)

Case Law: ABC v Google, Claimant who refused to tell the court or his opponent who he was runs out of track – Elisabeth Mason

In ABC v Google LLC [2019] EWHC 3020 (QB) the High Court dismissed the latest attempt by an anonymous litigant-in-person (‘ABC’) to continue his ‘right to be forgotten’ claim against Google.  The claim concerned Google’s failure to block access to historic news reports concerning ABC (whomever he may be).  Extraordinarily, ABC pursued his claim for nearly two years without ever identifying himself either to his opponent or to the court. Continue reading

Case Law: Ali v Channel 5, Can’t pay? Court of Appeal does not take claimants’ damages away (but neither will it increase them) – Tom Double

In Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 677, the Court of Appeal considered whether countervailing privacy and the public interest/freedom of expression rights had been properly balanced, together with the appropriate award of privacy damages arising from footage of an eviction shown on Channel 5, the Defendant in this action. Continue reading

NT1 and NT2 v Google Inc: How to seek the delisting of search engine results following the first English decision on the “right to be forgotten” – Iain Wilson

The much-anticipated decision in NT 1 & NT 2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) was handed down on 13 April 2018.  The joint judgment in two separate claims against Google, is the first time the English courts have had to rule on the application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ principle following the decision in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzalez (Case C-131/12). Continue reading

Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Revisiting the honest opinion defence – Suneet Sharma

The decision in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB) clarifies the application of the statutory defence of honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013. In doing so the case also confirms the application of the defence to statements made by Government bodies and the interdependence of the defence upon findings of meaning. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2020 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑