An email alleging that the Claimants had plotted "to destroy world cricket's structure and especially that in England, and create a new rebel league" was, contrary to the finding of the judge at first instance, capable of bearing a defamatory meaning of acting dishonourably and disloyally and in breach of regulations, and not simply in a robust competitive manner.
|
An article published on the internet to several thousand readers within the jurisdiction alleging that, inter alia, the Claimant had married off his daughter, Sarah (then aged only 13) to an elderly and disabled senior member of the Saudi royal family, as a gift; was seeking to have her and her daughter killed; had probably had her former lover killed; and was reasonably suspected of financing international terrorism warranted an award of damages for libel of £175,000
|
An honest comment defence was bound to succeed in respect of the primary defamatory meaning of an article criticising the Claimant MP over her expenses claim. Any residual claim was struck out as a Jameel abuse of process.
|
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant employee's appeal against the dismissal of her claim against the respondent employer for breach of its statutory duty pursuant to regulation 12(5) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 to provide a suitable and sufficient handrail. The Court of Appeal held that unless an exception as provided under regulation 12(5) applied, a handrail had to be provided and the burden rested on the employer to establish the existence of such an ...
|
HHJ Oliver-Jones QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) held that an employee who was injured whilst competing in a cycling race organised by his employers was not participating in the event in the course of his employment within the meaning of the relevant health and safety legislation. However, HHJ Oliver-Jones QC held that the partners organising the event had breached their duty of care owed to the claimant employee as neither had properly assessed the need to recommend and/or requ ...
|
Walker J considered a claim and counterclaim in relation to an agreement to send out 1 million email messages and 250,000 text messages as part of a sponsorship agreement. The contract stated that these messages would be 'targeted', and the court had to decide whether this definition required the recipients of the messages to have signed up for a particular service with the message provider, or whether it would be sufficient for the recipients to have been selected from purchased data. The court ...
|
An appeal was dismissed against an order that the claimant pay security for costs in respect of his claim for copyright infringement by the defendant publisher and author's book "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". The judge had exercised his discretion properly in ordering 65% of the defendants' costs estimate to be paid in three tranches, in default of which the action to be struck out. The order was entirely justified given the claim's poor prospects of success, and given the claimant's nom ...
|
This case concerned the licensing requirements for a media monitoring service provided by M to customers of a PR agency, which tracked the content of newspaper websites, enabling the end user to access the headline, opening text and an extract from articles matching their search terms. N, which managed the IP rights of various newspapers, introduced a requirement that PR consultants and end-users of the media monitoring service purchase end-user licences. The Court of Appeal upheld a decision co ...
|
The claimant owners of copyright in films succeeded in obtaining an injunction requiring BT to prevent its subscribers from accessing a subscription website called Newzbin2, which provided links to pirated films. It was not essential to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of a specific infringement of a specific copyright work by a specific individual. A service provider could be given actual knowledge of infringement by receipt of a sufficiently detailed notice and a reasonable opport ...
|
In a case concerning copyright in the "Stormtrooper" helmets and armour created in the UK for the Star Wars films, Lucasfilm's appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court, save that it was held that copyright claims under US law were justiciable in England. The Court of Appeal had been right to find that the helmets were not 'sculpture' within s.4 of the CDPA 1988. It was the film that was the work of art, and the helmets were a utilitarian element of the production process. This was the kind of ...
|
| 1 |