Prince Harry and David Beckham: a close look at IPSO’s approach to privacy – Oliver Lock

14 08 2017

IPSO recently published its decisions on two separate privacy complaints brought against the Mail Online: the first by Prince Harry (which was upheld) and the second by David and Victoria Beckham (which was not). Read the rest of this entry »





Twibel wars: Twitter is not “the wild west” in the eyes of the law – Oliver Lock

5 04 2017

Last month, Mr Justice Warby handed down judgment in Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB), the first libel case to consider the “serious harm” test under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 within the context of a social media post.

Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Economou v de Freitas, Is it interesting? New judgment considers the scope of the ‘public interest’ defence – Oliver Lock

28 09 2016

EconomouThe case of Economou v de Freitas ([2016] EWHC 1853 (QB)) was the first case to substantively consider in detail the new “public interest” defence since the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, clarifying that the Court will place a great deal of weight on whether the Defendant “reasonably believed” the publication was in the public interest and not just on whether it was a general matter of public interest. Read the rest of this entry »





A time to reflect: the serious harm test – Oliver Lock and Tom Rudkin

31 07 2016

Defamation ActOn 1 January 2014, the Defamation Act 2013 came into force in England and Wales, introducing a series of new provisions applicable to the law of libel and slander. Of greatest interest was Section 1 of the Act, the “serious harm” requirement. This introduced a new hurdle for persons and businesses wanting to bring a claim for defamation.

Read the rest of this entry »