‘Kellogg’s said it was disappointed by a ruling that banned its TV advert to appear between children’s programmes, despite it being for a “healthier” product. Ads for food giants KFC and Kellogg’s have been banned for promoting junk food to children, one outside a school and the other during a television cartoon programme.’
Daily Telegraph, 8th August 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The BBC’s Panorama broke broadcasting rules by mistakenly revealing the first name of a teenager who was meant to be anonymous, TV watchdog Ofcom has said.’
BBC News, 6th August 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1780 is a dispute between the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online, and the eye-wateringly rich former son-in-law of Berne Ecclestone about coverage of the latter by the former. Simply googling the claimant’s name and seeing the Mail Online headines gives some idea of why he might find that coverage less than flattering. It is, in short, a dispute where most people would like both sides to lose.Happily, thanks to the Court of the Appeal, they have. Both sides now have to fund a reference to the CJEU about the compatibility of section 32(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (still alive and kicking for these purposes) with Directive 95/46/EC, and the considerable delay built into that process. The reference was made because the Court split two to one (Sir Terence Etherton MR and Macfarlane LJ against Sharp LJ) on whether the stay mechanism imposed by section 32(4) was consistent with Article 9 of the Directive (freedom of expression rights) and Article 22 (effective remedy rights). At first instance, Popplewell J had found the provision to be a permissible implementation of the Directive.’
Panopticon, 6th August 2018
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Statements which, considered in isolation, do not cause or are not likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation cannot be aggregated for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim in England and Wales, a High Court judge has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Statements which, considered in isolation, do not cause or are not likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation cannot be aggregated for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim in England and Wales, a High Court judge has ruled.
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd August 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘There is an old joke, in which a man is driving through the countryside, lost. He stops his car in a small village to ask a local for directions. The local responds by saying: ‘you want to get where? Oh, to get there, I wouldn’t start from here.’’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The BBC has agreed to pay Sir Cliff Richard £850,000 within 14 days to cover his legal costs, following his privacy case against the corporation.’
BBC News, 26th July 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Sir Cliff’s case against the BBC (Sir Cliff Richard OBE v (1) The British Broadcasting Corporation (2) Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police ) following the raid on his home in August 2014 was billed as of “enormous importance” in relation to whether the media are able to identify a suspect pre-charge, as well as having “massive implications” for the reporting of early phases of police investigations. The first trial of its kind in this country, this article considers the ramifications of this High Court decision on the press reporting of those subject to police investigation.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘When he emerged from court on Wednesday after a judge ruled in his favour in one of the most carefully watched media law cases of the year, Sir Cliff Richard declared himself delighted at what he saw as a vital victory over the BBC. But while there is no doubt that the decision is a blow to the corporation, the case sets a wider precedent, too – and one that experts say could have a substantial impact on the future media coverage of criminal cases.’
The Guardian, 18th July 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The delicate balance between a person’s right to privacy and someone else’s right to freedom of expression were set at odds when they were enshrined in the Human Rights Act, brought in by Tony Blair’s Labour Government in 1998.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th July 2018
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Cliff Richard has won his privacy case against the BBC and will be awarded £210,000 in damages following a lengthy legal battle with the broadcaster after it reported the singer was being investigated over historic child sex assault claims.’
The Guardian, 18th July 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Alex Salmond Show on Kremlin-backed TV channel RT breached broadcasting rules, media watchdog Ofcom has ruled. The regulator investigated “audience tweets” used in the former Scottish first minister’s show on the Russian broadcaster, which aired last year. It found they were presented as having come from viewers, but most were posted by people working on the programme.’
BBC News, 16th July 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, has paid libel damages to the brother of Princess Diana over a claim he acted in a heartless and callous way towards her following the collapse of her marriage to Prince Charles.’
The Independent, 28th June 2018
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The growing use of social media could be a factor behind the 39% rise in the number of defamation claims brought before the courts in London that has been recorded, a media law expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 27th June 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘We recently complained to The Daily Mail about an inaccurate article compounded by a particularly misleading headline which extracted a minor fact from a judgment that had potential to make an attention grabbing headline, and made it sound as if it was what the case was all about. The headline was :
Nurse’s one-year-old son is taken from her care after she let him sit in a Bob The Builder toy car that was ‘inappropriate’ for his age.
Our complaint was rejected. We promised to progress our complaint to IPSO and to set out the basis of our complaint before we did so (on the basis that IPSO rules mean we can’t always publish the detail of complaints correspondence once we’ve entered the process).’
Transparency Project, June 2018
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Family analysis: Following a judge’s decision in 2002 that a girl who was then two years old should live with her father and that the mother should not have direct access, the Family Division in Re G (A Child) [2018] EWHC 1301 (Fam), [2018] All ER (D) 148 (May) refused a recent application by the girl’s older half-brother for access to all the files in the 2002 proceedings, and also refused the mother’s application for the removal of the undertaking she had given the judge not to communicate with the media. Adam Wolanski, barrister, of 5RB, examines the issues.’
Family Law, 11th June 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘The Daily Mail reported yesterday that a ‘Nurse’s one-year-old son is taken from her care after she let him sit in a Bob The Builder toy car that was ‘inappropriate’ for his age’.’
Transparency Project, 6th June 2018
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The media and communications list (M&CL) in the Queen’s Bench Division, and the Chancery Division’s business list are not specialist lists and a privacy claim can be heard equally well in either, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 7th June 2018
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Two London boroughs are considering whether to launch a judicial review challenge to directions by the government requiring them to only publish four issues of their newspapers a year, it has emerged.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th June 2018
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Forthright tabloid press coverage of an immigrant family’s decision to turn down an offer of a five-bedroom local authority house as too cramped for eight children was not defamatory, the presiding judge of the Media and Communications Bench ruled. However Mr Justice Warby allowed a complaint about readers’ comments to go ahead on the grounds of harassment.’
Law Society's Gazette, 29th May 2018
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024