Case Law, Canada: Haaretz.com v Goldhar: Supreme Court rules on jurisdiction and forum in multi-jurisdictional Internet defamation claims – Natasha Holcroft-Emmess

10 07 2018

In Haaretz.com v Goldhar 2018 SCC 28, the Canadian Supreme Court considered jurisdiction and forum conveniens in a multi-jurisdictional Internet libel claim. The Court was divided – allowing the news organisation’s appeal 6:3. All of the Justices concluded that Canada had jurisdiction to hear the claim, but a majority found that Israel was a clearly more appropriate forum. Read the rest of this entry »





News: Serious Harm, Supreme Court grants permission to appeal in Lachaux v Independent Print

23 03 2018

On 21 March 2018 the Supreme Court (Lords Kerr and Reed and Lady Black) granted the defendants permission to appeal in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print.  The Supreme Court will now consider the meaning and effect of the “serious harm” requirement in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 for the first time. Read the rest of this entry »





Canada: Haaretz.com v Goldhar: Supreme Court set to pronounce on forum and jurisdiction in Internet libel claim – Natasha Holcroft-Emmess

14 02 2018

In Haaretz.com et al v Mitchell Goldhar (SCC case no. 37202), the Supreme Court of Canada is asked to decide whether the court in Ontario has jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim arising from an article widely published in Israel, but read online by a number of people in Canada. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Preview: Cartier International AG v British Telecommunications plc, Supreme Court to consider ISPs and costs of blocking orders

28 01 2018

On Tuesday 30 January 2018, the UK Supreme Court (Lords Mance, Kerr, Sumption, Reed and Hodge) will hear the appeal of Cartier International AG & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc & AnorRead the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Flood v Times Newspapers, CFA appeals dismissed, future of the scheme left open – Aidan Wills

20 04 2017

On 11 April 2017 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed three appeals brought by media organisations challenging the article 10 ECHR compliance of the recovery of additional liabilities (CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums) from defendants in ‘publication cases.’ ([2017] UKSC 33). Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a claimant lawyer’s perspective – Nigel Tait

14 04 2017

There is an old saying that when a woman is forced to choose between two men, she opts for the third, and so it is with the Supreme Court’s decision in Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood, Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd [2017] UKSC 33. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a response to Keith Mathieson from a lawyer who acts for both claimants and defendants – Jonathan Coad

13 04 2017

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. Read the rest of this entry »