Service out on Google.Inc set aside where Claimant's evidence only that five persons within England had read the words complained of:-In a claim relating, in part, to publications on websites hosted by Google Inc, an order allowing service out of the jurisdiction on that organisation was set aside where the continuance of the proceedings against it, on the basis of publication to five individuals who were not known to her, nor she to them, and in circumstances in which no worthwhile vindication ...
|
'Solicitors from Hell' website closed down:-The publication of words complained of on the Defendant's 'Solicitors from Hell' constituted libel, harassment, and breach of the Data Protection Act in respect of the members of the Second Claimant (a firm named on the site) and the Third Claimant (an individual solicitor named on the site). Further, the Second and Third Claimants (although not the First Claimant) could act in a representative capacity n behalf of all those currently featuring on the ...
|
'Expenses scandal' statements were factual allegations, not comments.References to the Claimant as an 'Expenses Scandal' MP in campaign newsletters designed to look like local newspapers distributed by Eastbourne Liberal Democrats before the 2010 General Election were statements of fact and therefore the defence of honest comment was not available. Further, the statements complained of did not mean merely that the Claimant had made legitimate use of the MPs' expenses system, but rather that he h ...
|
A libel action was struck out as an abuse of process after periods of delay of 15 months prior to service of particulars of claim and of a further three years between settlement of a related libel action and revival of the claim. That delay demonstrated a lack of intention on the part of the Claimant to prosecute the action, and that he did not regard the allegations as particularly grave. Success for him now would achieve very little indeed, and there was no real prospect of an injunction being ...
|
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 pursuer was an accomplished curler, who was the skipper of the Scottish Ladies Curling team, who were competing at the World Ladies Curling Championships in Vernon, Canada in March 2008. The defender was the national coach of the team. Following poor results at the Championships, the defender told the pursuer that she was being dropped from the team for future matches. Latterly, at a press conference, the defender had told the media that the pursuer had been given the opportunity to play in ...
|
A publication only to the Claimant’s solicitor was struck out as an abuse of process under the principles set out in Jameel v Dow Jones: no vindication or injunction could properly be sought that would justify the court time necessary to try the claim.
|
Disapplication of limitation period - defamation claims likely to raise different considerations to personal injury claims so as to warrant “different manifestations of the application of the same principles”
The leading decisions as to disapplication of limitation period in defamation and personal injury (Steedman v BBC [2002] EMLR 318 and Cain v Francis [2009] QB 754 respectively) were not in conflict but rather reflected the fact that the two types of claims are likely to raise different issues. In particular, the impact of a defamation is likely to be relatively transient and a claimant is expected to assert and pursue his need for vindication speedily. An appeal against a refusal to disapply the ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |