The defendant company published case law. The claimant’s case had been anonymised, but the defendant published a version of the judgment from which it was possible to identify him (or her). An order had been made to transfer the case to the County Court, but the claimant applied to have the order set aside.
Held: At the time the M and CL (Media and Communications List) was only just established. The court recorded its views that: ‘It seems to me to be strongly in the interests of justice that this matter be heard by a specialist judge, and that with the advent of the media and communications list (which was only announced after Master Price’s order was made), such a specialist list has now become available, and it seems to me to be the most appropriate forum.
Furthermore, the Chancery Division does not seem to be the appropriate tribunal given the matters raised by the claim and the defendants forthcoming application for summary judgement.’
Judges:
Deputy Master Arkush
Citations:
Unreported
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616907