Case Law, Australia: Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd, Rebel Wilson awarded defamation damages of $4.5 million

18 09 2017

On 13 September 2017, Dixon J handed down judgment in the case of Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521.  He awarded Rebel Wilson a total of Aus$4,567,472 in defamation damages against Bauer Media Pty Ltd and Bauer Media Australia Pty Ltd (“Bauer Media”). Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Woodward v Grice, Fan ordered to pay football club’s solicitor £18,000 for online libel – Emma Brown

7 07 2017

In Woodward v Grice [2017] EWHC 1292 (QB) the High Court considered the appropriate level of damages to award against a fan of the club for libellous statements made on an online forum. Read the rest of this entry »





News: Statement in Open Court, Businessmen win libel damages and apology from former employer

29 06 2017

Richard Meechan and Jamie MacSween have succeeded in their libel action against FuelDefend Global Ltd and its chairman, Russell Fowler. At the High Court on 28 June 2017 they received a public apology from the defendants. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Hourani v Thomson, Businessman awarded damages for ‘sophisticated campaign of harassment’ – David Hill

19 03 2017

In the case of Hourani v Thomson & Ors ([2017] EWHC 432 (QB)) a businessman who was the target of a “sustained, highly sophisticated, cynical and calculated” campaign was awarded £80,000 in damages for defamation and harassment following a 10 day trial in the High Court. Read the rest of this entry »





Ireland, Reform of the law of defamation: damages – Eoin O’Dell

6 01 2017

ipi-flag-eurosThe Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality is conducting a review of the operation of the Defamation Act 2009 (also here). No doubt the focus of media submissions will be the level of damages, and exhibit A in those submissions will unquestionably be the decision of the Supreme Court in Leech v Independent Newspapers [2014] IESC 79 (19 December 2014). Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Flymenow v Quick Air Jet Charter, Libel damages reduced to £10 because of claimant’s disgraceful conduct – Neelam Gomersall

22 12 2016

logoIn the case of Flymenow Ltd v Quick Air Jet Charter GmbH [2016] EWHC 3197 (QB) an aircraft charter company was awarded nominal damages of £10 in a libel action after it was found that it had acted “disgracefully” before and during the litigation. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Limited, Claimant awarded “top bracket” defamation damages – Laura Parnell

16 12 2016

mir-shakeel-ur-rehman-geo-tv1The High Court has awarded Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, the Chief Executive of Pakistan’s largest media group, one of the highest compensatory awards granted in recent years following his defamation claim against ARY Network Limited (a UK broadcaster), and its Chief Operating Officer, Fayaz Ghafoor ([2016] EWHC 3110 (QB)). Read the rest of this entry »





News: Mirror Phone Hacking Litigation, admissions and apologies in twenty nine more cases

19 11 2016

TrinityMirrorOn 17  November 2016, Mirror Group admitted liability and apologised in twenty nine more phone hacking cases.  Statements in open court were read before the managing judge, Mr Justice Mann. Read the rest of this entry »





Quantifying Damages for Breach of Privacy – Gideon Barth

2 11 2016

Home OfficeThe case of TLT v Secretary for Home Department ([2016] EWHC 2217 (QB)) concerned the quantification of damages for data breaches. In October 2013, the Home Office published statistics on its family returns process, the means by which children with no right to remain in the UK are sent back to their country of origin. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: TLT v Home Office, Damages of £39,500 for asylum seeker spreadsheet blunder – Aidan Wills

15 10 2016

Home OfficeIn a decision handed down on 24 June 2016 (TLT and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB)) Mitting J ordered the Home Office to pay six claimants a combined total of £39,500 for the misuse of private information and breaches of the Data Protection Act (“DPA”) 1998 arising from the publication online of a spreadsheet. A redacted version of the judgment was made public last week. Read the rest of this entry »