Citations:
36815/02, [2011] ECHR 1809
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448186
36815/02, [2011] ECHR 1809
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448186
18515/07, [2011] ECHR 1856
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448176
4650/06, [2011] ECHR 1803
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448182
4446/10, [2011] ECHR 1797
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448185
7354/09, [2011] ECHR 1794
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448183
53783/09, [2011] ECHR 1869
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448181
69587/10, [2011] ECHR 1872
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448184
Admissible – complaint by Polish nationals as to failure to supply information about the Katyn massacre during the second world war.
Dean Spielmann, P
55508/07, [2007] ECHR 1830
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Admissibility – Janowiec And Others v Russia ECHR 21-Oct-2013
ECHR Grand Chamber – Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Positive obligations
Alleged failure adequately to account for fate of Polish prisoners executed by Soviet secret police at Katyn in 1940: no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448169
488/07, [2011] ECHR 1857
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448179
47551/09, [2011] ECHR 1821
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448180
7347/04, [2011] ECHR 1810
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448177
24395/06, [2011] ECHR 1860
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448175
37075/09, [2011] ECHR 1829
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448174
18977/07, [2011] ECHR 1861
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448173
9361/04, [2011] ECHR 1897
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448172
948/05, [2011] ECHR 1814
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448170
3522/04, [2008] ECHR 753
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.272729
61679/00, [2006] ECHR 569
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243854
36211/97, [2006] ECHR 99
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.239488
33238/96 ; 32965/96, [2006] ECHR 98
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.239487
72034/01, [2008] ECHR 750, [2006] ECHR 1166, [2010] ECHR 57
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.272670
21302/02, [2006] ECHR 616
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243900
33247/96, [2006] ECHR 103
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.239492
36719/03, [2006] ECHR 592
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243877
24435/04, [2008] ECHR 758
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.272662
47628/99, [2006] ECHR 111
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.239500
72374/01, [2006] ECHR 621
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243905
28704/06, [2008] ECHR 759
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.272728
75529/01, [2006] ECHR 607, [2008] ECHR 840
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.243891
41968/98, [2006] ECHR 95
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.239484
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
38805/97
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.200272
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given oral evidence, and the Registrar contended that any further appeal to the High court should be by way of review only. The CPR were not excluded, but would provide for a review only.
Held: It was insufficient to characterise the decision as administartive. The appointed officer was accepted not to be an independent tribunal. The decision to be made would involve private rights and the right to a fair trial was engaged. The question was whether the court was obliged to order a rehearing rather than a review whenever an ex parte hearing had taken place. It was for the court to decide whether a rehearing was appropriate. The need to comply with Art 6.1 meant that a rehearing had to be available if needed. In this case a review was adequate. The mark sought had to be used, up to the relevant date, as a trade mark. It is otherwise difficult to see how the feature (a clear bin) could come to be regarded in the minds of the public as a guarantee of origin. On that basis the court would have dismissed the appeal on acquired distinctiveness.
The Honourable Mr Justice Patten
Times 23-May-2003, [2003] EWHC 1062 (Ch), Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2406
Trade Marks Act 1994 76, Trade Mark Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000 No. 136) 54(1), Civil Procedure Rules 52.11(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
England and Wales
Cited – De Cubber v Belgium ECHR 26-Oct-1984
The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that . .
Cited – South Cone Incorporated v Bessant, Greensmith, House and Stringer (a Partnership) trading as ‘Reef’; REEF Trade Mark ChD 24-Jul-2001
The applicants sought registration of the trade mark ‘Reef’ in connection with merchandising activities in classes 25 and 26 arising from their pop group of the same name. The challengers owned a trade mark ‘Reef Brazil’ in class 25 in relation to . .
Cited – Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd ECJ 18-Jun-2002
The claimant developed a three headed rotary razor for men. They obtained registration of the arrangement as a trade mark. They sued the defendant for infringement, and the defendant countered challenging the validity of the registration, saying the . .
Cited – Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions and Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber and another ECJ 4-May-1999
Registration is to be refused in respect of descriptive marks, ie marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of the categories of goods or services in respect of which registration is applied . .
Cited – Procter and Gamble Co v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (‘Baby-Dry’) ECJ 20-Sep-2001
ECJ Appeal – Admissibility – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Distinctive character – Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications – . .
Cited – David West Trading As Eastenders v Fuller Smith and Turner Plc CA 31-Jan-2003
The appellant sought a declaration of invalidity as regards the defendant’s registered mark ‘ESB’. It was claimed to have come to be used as a general designation of certain kinds of beer.
Held: The Philips decision appeared to supercede the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.182220
ECHR Judgment : Freedom of assembly and association : Second Section Committee
26638/07, [2021] ECHR 118
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.658597
ECHR Judgment : Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee
15634/20, [2021] ECHR 129
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.658593
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been involved in very substantial litigation over an alleged nuisance. The claimants’ lawyers had acted under a conditional fee agreement, and were successful at trial. The defendants objected to the payment of a proportion of the success fee payable by the claimants to their solicitors, and of the After the Evenet Insurance premium.
Held: The system was compatible with the defendants’ human rights. The aims of the scheme were, to reduce the burden of legal aid, to discourage weak claims and to facilitate court access. Tyey did so by transferring the burden of costs to an unsuccessful defendant. Those were legitimate aims, and the means were proportionate.
‘there is a powerful argument that the 1999 Act scheme is compatible with the Convention for the simple reason that it is a general measure which was (i) justified by the need to widen access to justice to litigants following the withdrawal of legal aid; (ii) made following wide consultation and (iii) fell within the wide area of discretionary judgment of the legislature and rule-makers to make. On that basis, it is no answer to say that other measures could have been taken which would have operated less harshly on non-rich respondents: the reasoning of the ECtHR at para 110 of the Animal Defenders case is particularly apposite here. ‘
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
[2015] UKSC 50, [2015] 1 WLR 3485, [2015] 4 Costs LO 507, [2015] WLR(D) 332, [2015] HRLR 16, UKSC 2012/0076
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC 50, SC 2014 46/13, SC 50 Summ, SC 2014 46/13 Summ
European Convention on Human Rights, Access to Justice Act 1999
England and Wales
See Also – Lawrence and Another v Fen Tigers Ltd and Others QBD 4-Mar-2011
The claimants had complained that motor-cycle and other racing activities on neighbouring lands were a noise nuisance, but the court also considered that agents of the defendants had sought to intimidate the claimants into not pursuing their action. . .
See Also – Coventry (T/A RDC Promotions and Another v Lawrence and Others CA 27-Feb-2012
The appellants, owners of a motor sport racing circuit, appealed against a finding that their activities constituted a nuisance, given that they had planning permissions for the use.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had erred in holding . .
Principal judgment – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .
Adjourned from – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another (No 2) SC 23-Jul-2014
Consequential judgment. Mr Coventry had been found liable in the principle judgment in nuisance to the appellant neighbours. The Court was now asked as to several matters arising. First, to what extent were the defendants’ landlords liable to the . .
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .
Cited – Atack v Lee and Another CA 16-Dec-2004
Defendant insurers had challenged conditional fee agreements involving a two stage success fee. Both cases took place before limitations were introduced by Callery v Gray.
Held: It would be wrong to apply Callery v Gray retrospectively. A two . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Cited – Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council CA 31-Jul-2006
The Court considered the validity of after the event legal expenses insurance and conditional fee agreements schemes, and in particular whether an ATE premium was recoverable by a successful claimant. The damages had been agreed in the sum of pounds . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-2008
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 . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Swift v Secretary of State for Justice CA 18-Mar-2013
The claimant appealed against refusal of a declaration that the 1976 Act infringed her human rights. She had been cohabiting for six months, when her partner was killed in an accident at work for which a third party was liable. Because she had not . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Simmons v Castle CA 10-Oct-2012
The court amended its earlier judgment as to the overall increase in the level of damages to be awarded in personal injury cases.
The system enacted in the 1999 Act remains in force in relation to litigation brought pursuant to conditional fee . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Halloran v Delaney CA 6-Sep-2002
The claimant had succeeded in his claim for personal injuries, and had issued costs only proceedings. The defendant challenged the ‘success fee’ claimed as part of the conditional fee arrangement.
Held: The costs recoverable were to be . .
Cited – In re Claims Direct Test Cases CA 12-Feb-2003
The parties sought repayment as part of their costs of insurance premiums paid by claimants undertaking litigation.
Held: The underwriters charged andpound;140.00 for each case. Claims Direct charged a premium of andpound;1,250.00 for each . .
Cited – KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council CA 27-Apr-2005
(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action.
Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they . .
Cited – Crane v Canons Leisure Centre CA 19-Dec-2007
Sums paid out by a solicitor to his costs draughtsman are profit costs as part of the base costs to which the success fee mark-up under a conditional fee agreement applies, rather than disbursements. The defining characteristic was whether the . .
Cited – C (acting by her litigation friend JF) v W CA 19-Dec-2008
The court considered the proper basis for a success fee payable on a conditional fee agreement where, when signed, the defendant had already admitted liability. The claim was by a woman after being injured in a car driven by her brother. By the time . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.550391
5744/05 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1775
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.464628
31443/96, [2005] ECHR 647
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Broniowski v Poland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of P1-1 ; Just satisfaction reserved ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
See Also – Broniowski v Poland ECHR 30-Sep-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447654
31443/96, [2009] ECHR 1759
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Broniowski v Poland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of P1-1 ; Just satisfaction reserved ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
See Also – Broniowski v Poland ECHR 28-Sep-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447655
The claimant musician alleged defamation, saying that the defendant had accused him of being a right wing racist. The defendant now applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process because of the claimant’s delay.
Held: The application to strike out the claim failed. The reasons for delay were credible. The allegation was serious and had been widely distributed.
Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 2738 (QB)
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Cited – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Cited – Grovit and Another v Doctor and Others CA 28-Oct-1993
A delay in the prosecution of a libel case can be interpreted as an abuse of process. A claimant must pursue his case with vigour, and the court should be ready to resist the use of actions to gag defendants. The court asked whether the appellant’s . .
Cited – Birkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
Cited – Lait v Evening Standard Ltd CA 28-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in an article regarding her expenses claims as an MP. She appealed against summary judgment in favour of the defence in their pleaded defence of honest comment.
Held: Laws LJ said: ‘The . .
Cited – John v MGN Ltd CA 12-Dec-1995
Defamation – Large Damages Awards
MGN appealed as to the level of damages awarded against it namely pounds 350,000 damages, comprising pounds 75,000 compensatory damages and pounds 275,000 exemplary damages. The newspaper contended that as a matter of principle there is no scope in . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447534
26135/95, [1996] ECHR 86
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.440300
20674/07, [2010] ECHR 720
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.416232
22094/04, [2008] ECHR 756
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.272674
13151/04, [2008] ECHR 755
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.272725
42783/06, [2009] ECHR 320
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.301678
75779/01, [2006] ECHR 588
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.243873
55955/00, [2006] ECHR 93
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.239482
4171/03, [2006] ECHR 620
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.243904
4504/04, [2006] ECHR 590
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.243875
25324/02, [2006] ECHR 107
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.239496
77543/01, [2006] ECHR 591
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.243876
46281/99, [2006] ECHR 106
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.239495
27102/02, [2006] ECHR 582
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.243867
[2006] EWCA Civ 1153
European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.244208
A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the hunting of harp seals.
Held: The Court considered whether the newspaper had a reasonable basis for its factual allegations to decide whether it was correct to restrict the freedom to publish. ‘Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart – in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest.’ As to balance: ‘Article 10 of the Convention does not, however, guarantee a wholly freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern. Under the terms of paragraph 2 of the Article the exercise of this freedom carries with it ‘duties and responsibilities’ which also apply to the press. These ‘duties and responsibilities’ are liable to assume significance when, as in the present case, there is question of attacking the reputation of private individuals and examining the ‘rights of others’. As pointed out by the government, the seal hunters’ right to protection of their honour and reputation is itself internationally recognised under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Also of relevance for the balancing of competing interests which the Court must carry out is the fact that under article 6(2) of the Convention the seal hunters had a right to be presumed innocent of any criminal offence until proved guilty. By reason of the duties and responsibilities’ inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.’
21980/93, (2000) 29 EHRR 125, [1999] ECHR 29
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No 2) CA 12-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against a refusal to allow them to amend their pleadings. They wished to include allegations as to matters which were unknown to the journalist at the time of publication.
Held: It is necessary for the defendants to . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Cited – Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2009
The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic . .
Cited – Doctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 9-Feb-2010
. .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
Cited – Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jan-2012
The first applicant had been chairman of a jury and had expressed his concerns about their behaviour to the second applicant who published them. They were prosecuted under the 1981 Act. They had said that no details of the deliberations had been . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and Others v Flood and Others SC 11-Apr-2017
Three newspaper publishers, having lost defamation cases, challenged the levels of costs awarded against them, saying that the levels infringed their own rights of free speech.
Held: Each of the three appeals was dismissed. . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.165714
It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person.
46311/99, [2002] ECHR 431, (2002) 35 EHRR 22, [2002] ECHR 436
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
See also – Christie v Wilson and Others CA 13-Jan-1999
The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs.
Held: There was no . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.172177
Four articles in the People all covered the same story about Esther Rantzen’s organisation, Childline, suggesting that the plaintiff had protected a teacher who had revealed to Childline abuses of children occurring at a school where he taught, by keeping secret that he himself was a pervert, unfit to have any child in his care. The suggestion was that Miss Rantzen had protected the teacher as a reward for his help. In so doing she had abandoned her own moral standards; her public statements of concern for abused children were insincere and hypocritical, and that she had lied when informing the newspaper that publication of the story would hamper the police investigation when the truth was that she wished to avoid exposure of her own misconduct and omissions. The defendant pleaded justification and lost.
Held: Juries in defamation actions may be referred to Court of Appeal decisions on libel quantum awards to help them assess their own award. The 1990 Act allowed the Court of Appeal to make its own awards in cases in which that of the jury had been held to be excessive. Article 10(2) which required that any restrictions on freedom of speech should be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society’, required that awards of damages for libel should be more controlled and predictable than they were. Leaving the award to a unguided jury and refusing to interfere unless the damages were such that ‘no twelve men could reasonably have given them’ might not comply either with the principle of legal certainty or the requirement of proportionality. ‘ . . . it seems to us that the grant of an almost limitless discretion to a jury fails to provide a satisfactory measurement for deciding what is ‘necessary in a democratic society’ or ‘justified by a pressing social need.’ We consider therefore that the common law properly understood requires the courts to subject large awards of damages to a more searching scrutiny than has been customary in the past. It follows that what has been regarded as the barrier against intervention should be lowered. The question becomes: ‘could a reasonable jury have thought that this award was necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation?” The Court of Appeal reduced the jury’s award of andpound;250,000 to andpound;110,000.
Neill LJ, Staughton LJ, Roch LJ
Times 06-Apr-1993, Independent 01-Apr-1993, [1994] QB 670, [1993] 4 All ER 975, [1993] EWCA Civ 16
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, European Convention on Human Rights 10(2)
England and Wales
Approved – Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd CA 1991
A 600,000 pound compensatory award was set aside by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it must have been made on the wrong basis, almost certainly so as to punish Private Eye. The Court of Appeal could not substitute its own award for that of a . .
Disapproved – McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) CA 1965
References to damages awards in personal injury actions were legitimate in directing a defamation jury on quantum. . .
Cited – The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Cited – The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .
Cited – Kiam v MGN Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
Where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as excessive, a ‘proper’ award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury’s view, but the highest award which a jury could reasonably . .
Cited – Gleaner Company Ltd and Another v Abrahams PC 14-Jul-2003
Punitive Defamation Damages Order Sustained
(Jamaica) The appellants challenged a substantial award of damages for defamation. They had wrongfully accused a government minister of corruption. There was evidence of substantial financial loss. ‘For nearly sixteen years the defendants, with all . .
Cited – Collins Stewart Ltd and Another v The Financial Times Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages for defamation. The claimed that the article had caused very substantial losses (andpound;230 million) to them by affecting their market capitalisation value. The defendant sought to strike out that part of the claim. . .
Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Cited – Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 20-Dec-2006
The claimant succeeded in her claims for general damages against the respondent for personal injury, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, but appealed refusal of the court to award aggravated damages against the chief constable.
Held: . .
Cited – Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Cited – Cairns v Modi CA 31-Oct-2012
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .
Cited – Dhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .
Cited – Turley v Unite The Union and Another QBD 19-Dec-2019
Defamation of Labour MP by Unite and Blogger
The claimant now a former MP had alleged that a posting on a website supported by the first defendant was false and defamatory. The posting suggested that the claimant had acted dishonestly in applying online for a category of membership of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.85667
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Fourth Section
73329/16, [2021] ECHR 105
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.658591
ECHR Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Fourth Section
11230/12, [2021] ECHR 135
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.658605
Human rights challenge to law on assisted suicide.
Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice May DBE
[2019] EWHC 3118 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.645825
5970/05 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1778
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.464629
[2010] ECHR 955, 7948/04
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.446027
20702/04, [2011] ECHR 1599
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445826
23215/02, [2011] ECHR 1601
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445828
16286/07, [2011] ECHR 1584
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445841
18414/10, [2011] ECHR 1596
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445831
43730/06, [2011] ECHR 1585
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445840
57862/09, [2011] ECHR 1595
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445839
35533/04, [2011] ECHR 1640
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445712
38073/06, [2011] ECHR 1587
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445822
4551/10, [2011] ECHR 1592
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445825
51143/07, [2011] ECHR 1586
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445810
23987/05, [2011] ECHR 1594
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445818
31276/05, [2011] ECHR 1693
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445721
36755/06, [2011] ECHR 1588
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445803
46390/10, [2011] ECHR 1602
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445798
11936/08, [2011] ECHR 1743
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445765
43654/05, [2011] ECHR 1589
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445815
35350/05, [2011] ECHR 1583
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445799
24273/04, [2011] ECHR 1598
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445823
56994/09, [2011] ECHR 1593
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445817
30951/10, [2011] ECHR 1597
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445807
39128/05, [2011] ECHR 1636
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445711
42697/05, [2011] ECHR 1591
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445811
51358/99, [2011] ECHR 1680
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445715
10418/03, [2011] ECHR 1695
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445714
62279/09, [2011] ECHR 1712
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445749
74785/01, [2011] ECHR 1689
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445713
58295/00, [2011] ECHR 1612
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445706
6817/02, [2011] ECHR 1690
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445707
18716/05, [2011] ECHR 471
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445697
69852/01, [2011] ECHR 1648
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445708
665/08, [2011] ECHR 1570
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445704
33340/03, [2011] ECHR 1674
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445702
399/02, [2011] ECHR 1610
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445703
5935/02, [2011] ECHR 1557
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445705
24772/05, [2011] ECHR 954
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445700
13/05/2008, [2011] ECHR 1581
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445710
18387/02, [2011] ECHR 1683
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445701
70073/10, [2011] ECHR 514
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445698
1180/04, [2011] ECHR 1685
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445709