The defendant had published an article based upon information said to be confidential and leaked from the claimant’s offices. A defamation claimant was suing the defendant in defamation, and the defendant wished to rely on the information in its defence. The present application obtained an interim injunction to restrain that and any other use, and for disclosure of the source of the leak. The defendant now sought further disclosure. The applicants replied that their own duties as police officers restricted that disclosure.
Held: In view of admissions now made by the defamation claimants no further disclosure was required of the present applicants. No order was made for disclosure of the source.
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 1566 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Police, Human Rights
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.441147
