The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Tag: Hugh Tomlinson QC (Page 4 of 6)

Case Law, Strasbourg: Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v Austria, Injunctions prohibiting attack on company’s reputation did not violate Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

Austrian DoctorsIn the case of Ärztekammer für Wien and Dorner v Austria ([2016] ECHR 179) the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that an injunction prohibiting a doctors’ leader from criticising a company which provided private health care was not an unjustified interference with his Article 10 rights. Despite the public interest in the subject matter, the protection of the commercial reputation of the company justified the grant of interim and final injunctions. Continue reading

Case Law: Ewing v Cardiff Crown Court, The taking of notes in court does not require judicial permission – Hugh Tomlinson QC

Taking NotesIn the case of Ewing v Crown Court sitting at Cardiff and Newport ([2016] EWHC 183 (Admin)) the Divisional Court confirmed an important feature of the open justice principle: that permission is not needed in order to take notes in Court.  Although the Court may, for good reason, withdraw the liberty to take notes, the default position is that anyone who attends a public hearing is free to take notes. Continue reading

Case Law: Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd, “serious harm to reputation” once again established by inference – Hugh Tomlinson QC

CSPIn 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

Case Law: Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown, corporate damages and injunction against unknown operators of website – Hugh Tomlinson QC

Solicitors from HellIn 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

Case Law, Northern Ireland: McAuley v Sunday Newspapers Ltd, Application for media injunction under Articles 2 and 3 dismissed – Hugh Tomlinson QC

High-Court-BelfastOn 26 August 2015, Stephens J sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division in Northern Ireland, handed down judgment in the case of McAuley v Sunday Newspapers Ltd ([2015] NIQB 74).  The Judge dismissed an application by the plaintiff for an injunction to prevent two newspapers from “harassing, pestering, annoying or molesting” him by publication of information.  He also rejected the plaintiff’s application to continue reporting restriction and anonymization orders. Continue reading

Case Law: Lachaux v Independent Print, “Serious Harm” under the Defamation Act 2013 and the drawing of inferences – Hugh Tomlinson QC

mark-warbyIn 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

Blocking Injunctions and the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction to make orders – Hugh Tomlinson QC

court-injunctionsThe recent “blocking injunction” decision of Mr Justice Arnold in Cartier International and Others v. BSkyB and others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch) has attracted considerable comment from intellectual property lawyers [1] but also contains a discussion of the Court’s jurisdiction to grant injunctions which is of general application and is potentially useful to media lawyers. Continue reading

Case Law: Strasbourg, Stankiewicz v. Poland, Responsible public interest journalism protected by Article 10 – Hugh Tomlinson QC

Rzeczpospolita_9-06-2010_paliwa_5-40In the case of Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland [2014] ECHR 1061, the Fourth Section of the Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 10 where the domestic courts had found that an article about a demand for a bribe by a public official had breached the official’s rights.  This was a public interest story in relation to which the applicants had complied with the tenets of responsible journalism. Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑