I make the case in Part 1 of this post that there are good policy reasons why Section 1(2) of the Defamation Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) does not always best serve the public interest. However even if the Section 1(2) hurdle were absent, a corporate claimant whose product or business practices have wrongly been attacked is likely then to be confronted with a “public interest” defence under Section 4. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Jonathan Coad (Page 1 of 4)
On 17 and 18 November 2020 Inforrm published a two-part post on “Corporate Claimants in Libel Cases, Part 1” and “Part 2” by Guy Vassall-Adams QC, which is an erudite and helpful analysis of the relevant law. Continue reading
In a recent adjudication of a complaint about an errant front-page story published by the Daily Mail misreporting a court award of compensation to a victim of unlawful imprisonment and ill treatment by British armed forces, IPSO has set out its rationale for effectively ruling out the correction of front-page articles via the front page. Continue reading
The trial judge (Mr Justice Mann) in Cliff Richard’s successful privacy claim against the BBC ([2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch)) has not seen the best side of the British media. In 2015 he presided over the phone hacking trial brought by victims against the Mirror newspaper group, Gulati v MGN. Continue reading
When in 1991 I qualified I into a well-known claimant media practice I was fortunate enough to find on my desk on the first day that I arrived a file containing a libel action being brought against London Weekend Television (by whom my new firm had just been instructed). Continue reading
Almost all the most powerful elements of Fleet Street will line up behind Mrs May in the run-up to the next election – and indeed they have already begun the process of doing so. As for the voting public, they are reliant on (inter alia) Fleet Street to help them make their voting decisions. The grandees of Fleet Street will be considering whether their titles are likely to be held to account in a way that they care about if it misleads voting public on key electoral issues. The answer to that question is; almost certainly not. Continue reading
In his piece on Inforrm yesterday, Keith Mathieson begins by describing the use of CFAs in cases against the media as a “scandal”. Evidently the Supreme Court did not agree with him – unanimously. One of the titles for whom he acts has already described judges with whom they disagree as “Enemies of the people”, so I suppose the judges can count themselves lucky not to have been attacked in similar terms. Continue reading
There are several other reasons why the decision of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers was aberrant. Transferring the risk from huge publishers like Associated Newspapers and News International for publishing false and defamatory material on to modestly remunerated public servants is such as police and army officers is extraordinary enough. Continue reading
For a media lawyer who has been battling “fake news” for his entire career – as well as robustly defending good investigatory journalism – there is a rich irony that the Culture Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons is belatedly to take an interest in fake news and is engaging in a public consultation. Continue reading
During the Leveson Inquiry, there was, apparently, an intense David versus Goliath battle being fought by Fleet Street. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑