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
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Supreme Court (Page 2 of 4)
The use of CFAs in cases against the media had become a scandal long before this appeal was heard. A mechanism intended to provide access to justice had become a gravy train for claimant lawyers. As claimant lawyers know, the mere threat of a CFA and ATE insurance could be used to bulldoze a media company into submission. Continue reading
The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals brought by the Murdoch, Mail and Mirror newspaper companies in relation to costs they must pay in libel and privacy cases they have lost – but at the same time the judges have thrown the future of access to justice in such cases into the lap of the government. Continue reading
From 24 to 26 January 2017, the Supreme Court heard three joined appeals raising the issue as to whether the recovery of conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) success fees and after the event insurance (“ATE”) premiums (collectively known as “additional liabilities”) in publication and privacy cases is incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. Inforrm published a case preview here. Continue reading
Sometimes, even after all these years of press lies and hypocrisy, the shamelessness of the big British newspaper companies can still take the breath away. Last week lawyers for the Murdoch, Mirror and Mail papers complained to the Supreme Court that costs in some media cases amounted to a ‘legal casino’ in which the bills could be so high that there was a ‘chilling effect’ on journalism. As a result, they argued, freedom of expression was endangered. Continue reading
The Supreme Court is currently hearing three joined appeals brought by media organisations challenging the Convention compatibility of the recoverability of conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees/uplift and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums (“additional liabilities”) in libel and privacy claims. Continue reading
On 17 and 18 January 2017, a seven judge Supreme Court will hear the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of PNM v Times Newspapers ([2014] EWCA Civ 1132). Continue reading
The joined appeals in Flood v Times Newspapers and Miller v Associated Newspapers in which the press arguing that CFA success fees and ATE insurance are contrary to Article 10 have been listed for a three day hearing on 24, 25 and 26 January 2017. Continue reading
On 2 August 2016, the Supreme Court (Lords Mance, Clarke and Wilson) gave the Daily Mail permission to appeal [pdf] in the case of Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd, a human rights challenge to CFA success fees and ATE insurance. Continue reading
Issues of world-wide identification and information on the internet in respect of privacy rights, celebrities and English law reignited in January this year. The Sun on Sunday began its attempt to tell readers about PJS’s ‘three-way’ with A and B with the full knowledge of his married partner YMA. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑