Last week’s Court of Appeal decision in OPO v MLA ([2014] EWCA Civ 1277) week is the most bewildering judgment for many years. A man who had “obtained a high degree of distinction in his chosen career” had written a book which covered among other things his childhood sexual abuse at school. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Dan Tench (Page 2 of 2)
This is the fifth and final post in this series about the Defamation Act 2013. In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” and “public interest“. In this post, I conclude by looking at the new intermediary defences in section 5 and section 10. Continue reading
In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” in section 2 and section 3. In this post, I continue setting out concerns with the Defamation Act 2013 by looking at the public interest defence in section 4. Continue reading
In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013 and concerns about section 1, “Serious harm”. In this post, I will look at at the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest opinion” which are set out section 2 and section 3. Continue reading
In this post, I continue setting out concerns with the Defamation Act 2013 by looking at the test for serious harm in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. There is no sensible objection to a seriousness threshold for a defamation claim. As the explanatory notes of the Act make clear, this is the current law. Continue reading
The Defamation Act 2013 has now been in force for just over six months. That means that practitioners have now had the opportunity to become more familiar with its terms and effect and applying it in practice. There have been few cases arising so far relating to its wording. However, my own view is that the closer one looks at the legislation, the more unwelcome it becomes. Continue reading
Google’s only public response so far to the judgment in Google Spain is to say that it is “disappointed” by the decision. It is reported that it is already being deluged with requests from individuals to bar access to personal information. Continue reading
In a recent post on Inforrm it was suggested that the recent notorious prank phone call from two Australian DJs to the King Edward VII Hospital where they blagged private information about the Duchess of Cambridge and which had such tragic consequences, constituted an offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). Continue reading
An interesting and potentially important corollary to the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case between Samsung and Apple ([2012] EWCA Civ 1339) was the development of a new form of order requiring the publication by the losing party (in this case Apple) of a summary of the judgment. Such publication orders, if developed, could have obvious and significant application in defamation and other actions to assist in the vindication of a party. Continue reading
The Supreme Court has had its first (and perhaps last) look at an issue arising from the phone hacking litigation against the News of the World newspaper. The appeal related to a request for further information served by the Claimant, Ms Nicola Phillips, on the Second Defendant, Mr Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator engaged by the newspaper. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑