Claim by international firm of lawyers for breach of confidence against publishers who had received and published that information. The court now considered which division of the High Court should hear the claim.
Held: Rose J considered the creation of the M and CL and observed: ‘the starting point is, as I have said, that the claimant can generally speaking choose in which Division to start the claim. Inroads have been made into a claimant’s ability to choose by the allocation of particular subjects to particular Divisions, by the creation of specialist lists about the grant of a specific power to the judges of a specialist list to control the cases that are heard in it. The CPR restricts the definition of a specialist list to a list created by a rule or Practice Direction because that ensures that before a specialist list is created, the lengthy oversight procedures and broad consultations that precede the making of a new rule or the issue of a new Practice Direction will have been followed. The M and CL is in its early stages and is proceeding by incremental steps. As Warby J stated in the ‘Conclusions and next steps’ section of the report on the consultation, it was too early in the process to formulate any firm proposals for submission to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. That committee would need to consider whether and, if so, how any changes to the CPR or any new Practice Direction should be taken forward. In my judgement, the creation of the M and CL in its current form does not mean that media cases wherever commenced should now be transferred into that list, against the wishes of the claimant.’
Judges:
Rose J
Citations:
[2018] EWHC 104 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – NATL Amusements (UK) Ltd and Others v White City (Shepherds Bush) Ltd Partnership and Another TCC 16-Oct-2009
Application for transfer of claim from QBD to TCC. Akenhead J considered an application to transfer a claim from the Chancery Division to the Technology and Construction Court. After reviewing the authorities, he said: ‘It is probably unnecessary to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 25-May-2018
Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. . .
Cited – Mezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 25-May-2018
Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604188