Although the substantive decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd was not an unjustified interference with the publisher’s right to freedom of expression, the requirement that the publisher should pay Ms Campbell’s success fee was, as she was wealthy, her solicitors did not do much work (so as to provide access to justice to the less wealthy) and the publisher’s case was not without merit.
|
An application to amend a Defence to a claim in malicious falsehood to plead that the words complained of were comment that an honest person could have made on the basis of certain facts was refused. A comment could still be malicious if the publisher did not hold the stated opinion, even if an honest person could have had such an opinion.
|
An appeal was allowed, holding that, where a well-known sportsman had obtained an injunction restraining publication of a story, on the facts of the case, the public interest and the interests of the claimant would be better served by an order granting anonymity but allowing the publication of limited details of the case, rather than an order permitting the identity of the claimant to be revealed but with little other information.
|
Open justice justified naming of privacy claimant
The identity of the Claimant in a claim for a privacy injunction would be revealed (regardless of agreement between the parties to the contrary) as it was impossible to reveal details of the subject matter of the claim without making it likely that the Claimant would be identified and the general principle of open justice provided sufficient public interest in the publishing of a report of the proceedings which identified the Claimant to justify any resulting curtailment of the rights of the Cla ...
|
There was a strong interest in protecting the identity of a child who was to receive a substantial sum in damages in order that those who may wish to profit from his money or deprive him of it would not be able to do so, which outweighed the general interest in a report of the court’s approval of a compromise naming him. Accordingly he was granted anonymity.
|
Anonymity of parties to litigation is an issue for the court, considering the relevant Article 6, 8 and 10 interests at play; it is not something to which the parties can agree. While there were good reasons for the Defendant to remain anonymous, there were no such reasons in respect of the Claimant, who would be named.
|
A finding by the Finnish courts that a report that a report that a presidential candidate had started a relationship with his communications officer was an invasion of the latter’s privacy was held to be a violation of the publisher’s rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. By virtue of her position the woman was no longer an entirely private person and the article contributed to an important matter of public interest in the form of political background information.
|
MP convicted of illegal practice for publishing statements which he had no reasonable belief to be true
As s.106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 engaged the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court should only find an infringement in the clearest of cases. The Respondent had published statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of an election opponent which he had no reasonable grounds for believing were true. The statutory penalties, that his election would be void and that he would be prohib ...
|
The seizure of journalistic material that revealed the identity of sources was a breach of Article 10. Appropriate procedural safeguards were necessary: such disclosures should only take place after independent review by a court or other impartial body.
|
There was credible evidence that D intended to disclose information as to C’s private life, in respect of which there was no public interest, and as such an injunction was warranted. Anonymity was necessary as details of the nature of the private information had already been published in the press.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |