Case Law: Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers, Allegations of wrongdoing struck out as irrelevant, complex and costly – Mathilde Groppo

12 05 2020

On 24 April 2020, Mr Justice Warby heard a pre-trial application in the case of HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited, in which the Defendant sought to have parts of the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and of the corresponding parts of her Responses to the Defendant’s Requests for Further Information struck out. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Comment: BVG v LAR, Summary judgment in privacy and harassment case – Mathilde Groppo and Persephone Bridgman-Baker

28 04 2020

On 21 April 2020, Nicol J granted summary judgment in a matter involving the online publication of covert recordings of intimate footage featuring both parties to the proceedings (BVG v LAR [2020] EWHC 931 (QB)). Read the rest of this entry »





Litigation during lockdown: UK courts keep calm and carry on – Mathilde Groppo

3 04 2020

When the Prime Minister announced the lockdown on 23 March 2020, the UK effectively aligned its response to the COVID-19 pandemic to that of other European countries. For litigation practitioners, this raised a number of queries relating not only to the effect this would have on their practice as a whole, but also – more pragmatically – to the effect this would have on upcoming hearings and the conduct thereof. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Lachaux v Independent Print, Supreme Court abolished common law presumption of damage in libel cases – Mathilde Groppo

13 06 2019

The Supreme Court yesterday handed down its long awaited judgment in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 27. As predicted by various commentators  giving a preview of the case (including in my previous post), the five Supreme Court judges (Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge and Lord Briggs) clarified the applicable law, but unanimously dismissed the appeals against the Court of Appeal decision ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334) on the facts. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Preview: Lachaux v Independent Print, Supreme Court to hear “serious harm” appeal – Mathilde Groppo

6 11 2018

On Tuesday and Wednesday 13 and 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge and Briggs) will hear the appeal in Lachaux (Respondent) v Independent Print Limited and another (Appellants) UKSC 2017/0175, against the Court of Appeal decision of Davis LJ, with whom MacFarlane and Sharp LJJ concurred ([2017] EWCA Civ 1334). Read the rest of this entry »





Libel Litigation: Jackson, Fixed Costs and Case Management – Mathilde Groppo

28 03 2017

The heavy costs burden of defamation proceedings has long been recognised. In 2010, Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs noted that “in the paradigm libel case the claimant is an individual of modest means and the defendant is a well-resourced media organisation”. Read the rest of this entry »





France’s highest administrative court urged to make a reference for a preliminary ruling in relation to right to be forgotten requests – Mathilde Groppo

9 02 2017

conseiletatIn May 2016, Google was reported to have unsuccessfully appealed against the French highest administrative court, the Conseil d’Etat, over a ruling that the decision in Google Spain requires delisting on all versions of the search engine, including google.com. A new episode of the battle over the interpretation of right to be forgotten requests is now taking place between data subjects and the French Data Protection Authority, CNIL. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Weller v Associated Newspapers, Privacy invaded by publication of unpixelated photographs of children – Mathilde Groppo

5 12 2015

Lord-DysonOn 20 November 2015, the Master of the Rolls, Tomlinson and Bean LJJ handed down judgment in Weller & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1176, upholding Dingemans J’s finding of liability for misuse of private information (and breach of the DPA, although this did not add anything as it was common ground that the claim for infringement of the DPA would either stand or fall with the claim for misuse of private information). Read the rest of this entry »