“Kelvin MacKenzie faces more woes after being dropped by the Telegraph as it emerged that his column in the Daily Mail has become the subject of a £200,000 libel case.”
The Guardian, 8th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Former cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell is taking legal action against the Sun over its reporting of his verbal altercation with police officers in Downing Street.”
The Guardian, 29th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Newspapers likely to take action over regulations that will require huge payouts when stories are wrong.”
The Guardian, 19th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Bloggers could face high fines for libel under the new Leveson deal with exemplary damages imposed if they don’t sign up to the new regulator, it was claimed on Tuesday.”
The Guardian, 19th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A blogger who sued a council chief executive for libel says she is ‘absolutely devastated’ after losing the case and being told to pay him £25,000 damages when he counter-sued.”
BBC News, 15th March 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The three leading political parties were last night close to signing up to a historic Royal Charter to implement the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson on reforming regulation of the press.”
The Independent, 12th March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has refused an appeal against the strike out of a libel claim against the BBC in relation to a review of an electric sports car by the ‘Top Gear’ programme. The judge below had been correct in concluding that there was no sufficient prospect of the manufacturer recovering a substantial sum of damages such as to justify continuing the case to trial.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Peers have staged a partial climbdown in their clash with the government over the introduction of Leveson-style controls on the press.”
The Guardian, 26th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“People who tweeted photos allegedly of child killer Jon Venables are being charged with contempt of court. It’s the latest in a long line of cases that suggest that ordinary social media users need to have a grasp of media law.”
BBC News, 26th February 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“You can say what you like about local authorities – and people do, knowing that the authority itself (as opposed to any individual member or employee) cannot sue in defamation. This was first established back in 1891 in Manchester Corporation v Williams [1891] 1 Q.B. 94, where it was held that the council could not complain about a letter to a newspaper alleging that ‘bribery and corruption have existed and done their nefarious work’ in a number of its departments.”
Education Law Blog, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.education11kbw.com
“Proposals for a new law which would require newspaper editors to seek regulatory approval for certain types of stories are flawed and should be abandoned, a number of peers have said.”
The Guardian, 22nd February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Lord McAlpine has announced that he is dropping defamation claims against Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers who wrongly named him as a paedophile, instead asking for a charitable donation.”
The Independent, 21st February 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“A retired solicitor who published claims that Madeleine McCann’s parents caused her death has been given a suspended jail sentence.”
The Guardian, 21st February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Tamiz v Google Inc and another [2013] EWCA Civ 68; [2013] WLR (D) 65
“An internet service provider which supplied a platform for blogs and various tools to assist the blogger, and which was able to remove or block access to blogs when alerted to the fact that they breached its own terms and conditions, could be potentially liable for defamatory comments posted on a blog once it had received notification and had had sufficient time to act. A defence might be available under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, but if the potential liability would be so trivial because of the short period of time between notification of the complaint and removal of the offending material, the maintenance of the proceedings could not be justified.”
WLR Daily, 14th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The fourth data protection principle requires that ‘personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date’. It does not, however ‘impose an absolute and unqualified obligation on [data controllers] to ensure the entire accuracy of the data they maintain. Questions of reasonableness arise in the application of the fourth principle, as paragraph 7 of Part II of Schedule I spells out.’ This statement by Davis LJ (at para. 80) encapsulates the case of Smeaton v Equifax plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108, in which the Court of Appeal handed down judgment today.”
Panopticon, 20th February 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The Court of Appeal has ruled that in principle, an internet service provider that allowed defamatory material to remain on a blog hosted on its platform after it had been notified of a complaint might be a ‘publisher’ of this material, although in this case the probable damage to the complainant’s reputation over a short period was so trivial that libel proceedings could not be justified.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th February 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, faces being sued for malfeasance over his newspaper’s coverage of the Hillsborough football disaster.”
The Guardian, 16th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Google may have to act quicker to remove potentially libellous posts from its Blogger platform following a court of appeal ruling in London.”
The Guardian, 14th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The costs budgeting provisions of the Jackson Report are among the most significant issues facing litigators today. One key concern has been that parties and their legal advisers face having otherwise recoverable costs disallowed if they fail to comply with the requirements concerning costs budgets. Those concerns were heightened by the decision in Sylvia Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 90218 (Costs) to disallow £268,832 of costs on the grounds that the claimant had failed to comply with rules concerning costs budgeting in PD 51 (see Legal update, Costs management: first decision under Defamation Proceedings Pilot Scheme). Those rules formed part of the Defamation Proceedings Pilot Scheme, on which the case was the first decided authority. The decision was taken to have considerably wider significance because of the similarity between the provisions of that pilot scheme and the main elements of the impending Jackson reforms.”
Full story (PDF)
Littleton Chambers, 6th February 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“Salford University, which charges students up to £9,000 a year in tuition fees
and axed 60 posts last year, was accused by a judge of abusing the High Court’s
processes in its actions against Dr Gary Duke.”
Daily Telegraph, 12th February 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025