‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’
Nearly Legal, 21st November 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘An action in defamation and under the right to privacy against Facebook has been dismissed in the High Court. The Facebook entity named as defendant did not “control” the publication so as to allow liability; and even if it did, no claim under the Human Rights Act could lie against FB as it could not be described as any sort of a public authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Act.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th November 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The University of Sussex has apologised to a former student, admitting there was “no truth” in its claim that he’d led an unlawful occupation of the university and carried out acts of criminal behaviour.’
The Guardian, 15th October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Journalists seeking to rely on the new ‘public interest’ defence to a claim of defamation will still have to be able to prove that they have taken steps to verify the accuracy of what they have published, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A former Conservative MP has told a court his reputation had been “trashed” by a national newspaper which alleged he breached parliamentary codes of conduct.’
BBC News, 12th October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Brett Wilson LLP v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for the Operation of the Website solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, 7 September (Warby J) [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB). This was a claim in libel by a firm of solicitors who acted for another firm which also claimed against the operators of SFHUK, causing the original site to be shut down (Law Society v Rick Kordowski [2011]). In this case the words complained of appeared on a new site, but despite efforts by the present claimants, it was not possible to find out who was operating it. The site alleged various aspects of mismanagement, including incompetence and fraud. It also quoted a client of the claimant firm who alleged overcharging and who refused to pay their fees. (It is worth noting that the site appears to have been taken down since default judgement was given in this case).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th September 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A High Court judge has ordered the take-down of pages of an anti-solicitor website that contain defamatory statements about a law firm, after a litigation opponent alleged their publication was “evidence that the firm was disreputable”.’
Legal Futures, 17th September 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The veteran Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky is suing the Crown Prosecution Service for libel over a statement it issued in April announcing that he was being charged with child pornography offences.’
The Guardian, 24th August 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Businesses and people that bring libel actions should not succeed with those claims unless there is proof that the published comments made about them damage, or are likely to damage, their reputation, the High Court in London has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th August 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The effect of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 was that a statement was not defamatory of a person unless it had caused or would probably cause serious harm to that person’s reputation, those being matters to be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The rise in the number of defamation claims before the High Court and Court of Appeal in London last year could reflect the growing risk online platforms face from such claims, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Comedian Freddie Starr is claiming damages from a woman who says he groped her when she was 15.’
BBC News, 15th June 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Lawyers do not have the same rights to speak out on sensitive and high-profile cases as journalists, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 29th May 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The actor Sir Roger Moore has accepted undisclosed libel damages over claims that he groped a woman while shooting James Bond film For Your Eyes Only. The 87-year-old also received an apology and his legal costs over a story that appeared in the Daily Mail and on Mail Online in October 2014.’
BBC News, 13th May 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Stalkers must be stopped from using a loophole in the legal system to harass their targets, a victim has said.’
BBC News, 29th April 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Plans to broadcast HBO’s Church of Scientology exposé, Going Clear, have been shelved by Sky Atlantic in a virtual repeat of events two years ago, when UK publishers abandoned publication of the book on which the hard-hitting new TV documentary is based.’
The Guardian, 18th April 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Defamation Act 2013 in some respects reformed the English law on defamation. Here are example cases in which it has been applied since last January.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The facts of this case are simple. A defamatory comment was posted on the claimant’s Google maps directional page, implying that he was a “loser” as a lawyer and that his firm lost “80%” of cases brought to them. The defendant claimed that someone must have hacked in to his own Google account to put up the post.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In this article, 5RB‘s Adrienne Page QC discusses what section 1 Defamation Act 2013 means in practice, and how it may affect both claimants and free speech.’
5RB, 10th February 2015
Source: www.5rb.com
‘An American lawyer has successfully sued over an online review posted by a British man, winning £50,000 damages at the High Court.’
Legal Futures, 9th March 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023