The publication of articles in a newspaper describing how a ‘black clerk’ had complained about the allegedly racist comments of two policemen was said to have caused the claimant to receive racist hate mail. Held: The court considered the type of conduct which had to be proved to bring the case within the statute. Publication … Continue reading Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 18 Jul 2001
Morland J said: ‘it is the duty of the courts to keep claims alleging trade libels within their proper bounds, particularly having regard to s.12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10 of the Convention.’ Judges: Morland J Citations: [2003] EWHC 1099 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 10, Human Rights Act 1998 … Continue reading Charterhouse Clinical Research Unit Ltd v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd: QBD 2003
The newspapers sought leave to report proceedings before the Court of Protection in connection with a patient unable to manage his own affairs. The patient retained a possible capacity to work as a professional musician. The family wanted the proceedings held in private. Held: Their appeal against the order allowing access failed. The normal rule … Continue reading A v Independent News and Media Ltd and Others: CA 31 Mar 2010
A newspaper company appealed against an order preventing it naming a footballer who, they claimed, had been unfaithful to his wife. Held: There remains a distinction between the right of privacy which attaches to sexual activities within and outside a marriage. An order restricting the freedom of the press requires positive and clear justification. The … Continue reading A v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd): CA 11 Mar 2002
The Mirror had published a picture of Naomi Campbell leaving a rehabilitation clinic. They appealed a decision in which having been found to have infringed her privacy by a covertly taken photograph, they had then been ordered to pay very substantial sums in costs, including a success fee. Held: The court asked the parties to … Continue reading MGN Limited v United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Oct 2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other products which did include Aspartame. The court was asked to determine the meanings. Held: The … Continue reading Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd: QBD 15 Jul 2009