In the case of Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) HHJ Moloney QC decided, on the trial of a preliminary issue, that the claimant had established serious harm to reputation” for the purposes of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Once again, the claimant succeeded on a “serious harm” case based almost entirely on inference. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Defamation Act 2013 (Page 3 of 7)
On 23 November 2015, in the case of Ahuja v Politika Novine ([2015] EWHC 3380 (QB)) Sir Michael Tugendhat set aside an order for service out of the jurisdiction of proceedings for the misuse of private information and libel which had been made by Master Roberts on 31 March 2015 in respect of an article in Politika, a Serbian language newspaper circulating in Serbia and neighbouring countries in hard copy and available in this country only on the internet. Continue reading
On 23 November 2015 Sir Michael Tugendhat, sitting as a High Court judge, handed down judgment in the case of Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini DOO ([2015] EWHC 3380 (QB)) setting aside an order permitting service of defamation proceedings on defendants in Serbia, Continue reading
Does Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown highlight how courts should approach anonymity in online cases? Iain Wilson, partner at Brett Wilson LLP, explains that the judgment shows courts recognise the harm that anonymous online publishers can cause and are thus prepared to deal with such cases in a robust and proportionate manner. Brett Wilson LLP partner Iain Wilson is interviewed by Susan Ghaiwal. This article was first published on Lexis® PSL IP&IT on 24 September 2015.
Continue reading
In the case of Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown ([2015] EWHC 2628 (QB))(16 September 2015) Warby J granted a permanent injunction against the unknown operators of the “Solicitors from Hell UK” website. He also awarded damages of £10,000. This is the first case under the Defamation Act 2013 in which a court has made an award of damages to a “body that trades for profit”. Continue reading
Could it be that suing for defamation is back in fashion? Despite predictions that the Defamation Act 2013 would lead to a decrease in the number of claims, statistics now show a whopping 60 per cent increase in the number of defamation claims issued in London in 2014 compared to the year before. Continue reading
In his recent decision in Lachaux v Independent Print ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) Mr Justice Warby considered a number of procedural matters which arise in defamation cases where there is an issue as to whether there has been “serious harm to reputation” as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Continue reading
In the case of Lachaux v Independent Print ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) Warby J gave judgement on preliminary issues, including an issue relating to “serious harm”, in a number of libel actions brought against three newspapers and the Huffington Post. He agreed with the analysis of “serious harm” in the earlier cases – damage to reputation must be proved and cannot be presumed. He nevertheless went on to find that there was, in fact, serious harm in relation to four of the five articles complained of. Continue reading
The result of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 is that a claimant in a defamation case must now establish that a publication “has caused or is likely to cause” serious harm to his or her reputation. A common law damage was presumed and the proof of the existence of serious harm is potentially a difficult hurdle for a claimant to overcome. The standard defendant response to a letter before action now usually involves a demand that the claimant identifies evidence of serious harm. Continue reading
The preliminary issues agreed by the parties in Cooke v MGN ([2014] EMLR 31) and directed by the Master, which came before Bean J, envisaged two issues being determined sequentially: (1) whether the words complained of bore the meanings alleged by the Claimants or any other meaning that (subject to serious harm) was defamatory of them and, if so, what meaning; and (2) whether the publication of those words had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimants’ reputations within the meaning of section 1. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑