Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Ex parte Pulbrook: QBD 11 Mar 1892

A judge in chambers gave permission pursuant to the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 to bring proceedings for criminal libel. The proposed defendant sought to appeal. This raised the question whether the order was made in ‘criminal proceedings’ . .

Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: SC 4 Jul 2018

Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, it would be open to the Court to receive closed material disclosed only to the court and a … Continue reading Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: SC 4 Jul 2018

McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited: HL 2 Nov 2000

(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed qualified privilege. Held: It is necessary in a modern democracy to restrict to as limited extent as … Continue reading McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited: HL 2 Nov 2000

Gleaves et Al v Insall; Gleaves v Insall: QBD 24 Mar 1999

A person wanting to issue criminal libel proceedings must disclose to a magistrates court the refusal of other justices to agree to issue the summons. A reporter is not himself responsible for publication, and leave is not required to issue against him. Citations: Times 24-Mar-1999 Statutes: Law of Libel (Amendment) Act 1888 8 Defamation Updated: … Continue reading Gleaves et Al v Insall; Gleaves v Insall: QBD 24 Mar 1999

Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle upon Tyne Profiteering Committee: HL 1921

Under Section 1 of the Profiteering Act 1919, the Board of Trade had power to receive and investigate complaints of excessive profiteering. Section 2 of the Act gave a power to establish local committees to make such reports with a view to . .