Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Media - From: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Alex Harvey Industries [1980] 1 NZLR 163
1980


Commonwealth, Media
The rule against a newspaper being ordered to disclose the source of its information in defamation proceedings was extended to apply also in slander of goods.
1 Citers


 
Mills and Allen Ltd v City of Glasgow [1980] JPL 409
1980
SCS

Scotland, Planning, Media
The sherriff court had not accepted a submission by the Council that an alteration from a painted gable wall advertising Raleigh Bicycles, to a smaller advertisement for Carlsberg Special Brew, painted onto plywood sheets which were nailed to the wall and surrounded by a timber frame, was a "substantial alteration" in the use of the site for the display of advertisements. Held: "On the second point the Sheriff could not accept, however, that the interposition of sheets of plywood between the paint and the stonework of the building must necessarily be regarded as a substantial alteration in the manner of the use of the site for the purpose of displaying advertisements, nor could he see that it necessarily made any difference that, according to the pursuers' averments, the new advertisement was surrounded by 'a nominal timber frame'. The general appearance and effect of an advertisement might be the same whether it was painted directly on a wall or on sheets of plywood or metal nailed to the wall, or printed on paper which in turn was pasted on the underlying surface. Changes from one such method to another may be no more than comparatively minor changes in the method used to achieve what may in appearance be almost exactly the same display. They were not necessarily substantial alterations in the manner of the use of the site for the purpose of that display."
1 Citers


 
British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 435
7 May 1980
CA
Lord Denning MR, Templeman LJ
Media, Contempt of Court, Litigation Practice
Lord Denning MR said that the Norwich Pharmacal case opened "a new chapter in our law" and "Mr Irvine suggested this was limited to cases where the injured person desired to sue the wrongdoer. I see no reason why it should be so limited. The same procedure should be available when he desires to obtain redress against the wrongdoer - or to protect himself against further wrongdoing."
Templeman LJ: "In my judgment the principle of the Norwich Pharmacal case applies whether or not the victim intends to pursue action in the courts against the wrongdoer provided that the existence of a cause of action is established and the victim cannot otherwise obtain justice. The remedy of discovery is intended in the final analysis to enable justice to be done. Justice can be achieved against an erring employee in a variety of ways and a plaintiff may obtain an order for discovery provided he shows that he is genuinely seeking lawful redress of a wrong and cannot otherwise obtain redress. In the present case BSC state that they will not finally determine whether to take legal proceedings or whether to dismiss the employee or whether to obtain redress in some other lawful manner until they have considered the identity, status and excuses of the employee. The disclosure of the identity of the disloyal employee will by itself protect BSC and their innocent employees now and for the future and is essential if B.S.C. are to redress the wrong."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096; [1981] 1 All ER 452; [1980] 3 WLR 774
7 May 1980
HL
Wilberforce, Salmon, Fraser of Tullybelton, Russell of Killowen LL, Viscount Dilhorne
Media, Litigation Practice
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief. Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right of the media to protect their sources where disclosure was necessary in the interests of justice. As to procedure, the courts could order disclosure of a third party's name. The defendant here could not claim to have been unaware of any wrongdoing by the person who delivered the documents, and this was not a case where they would receive the limited protection from discovery available in defamation cases.
Lord Wilberforce said: "there is a wide difference between what is interesting to the public and what it is in the public interest to make known."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 1) [1980] ECHR 6; (1981) 3 EHRR 317
6 Nov 1980
ECHR
Mr. G. BALLADORE PALLIERI, P
Human Rights, Costs, Media
The Court had held, inter alia, that there had been a breach of Article 10 by reason of an injunction granted against Times Newspapers Limited in accordance with the English law of contempt of court but no breach of Article 14 (art. 14).
During the proceedings on the merits, the applicants, without quantifying their claim, had requested the Court to declare, in application of Article 50, that the Government of the United Kingdom should pay the costs and expenses which they, the applicants, had incurred in connection with the contempt litigation in the English courts and the proceedings before the Commission and the Court. Held: By thirteen votes to three that the United Kingdom was to pay to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, the sum of twenty-two thousand six hundred and twenty-six pounds sterling and seventy-eight pence, but rejects unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
European Convention on Human Rights 50
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jespers v Belgium [1981] 27 DR 61; (1983) 5 EHRR 305; 8403/78
1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Media
ECHR (Commission) Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention
(a) A virulent press campaign can, in certain circumstances, adversely affect the fairness of a trial and involve the State's responsibility, particularly if it is sparked off bv one of the State's organs.
(b) Alleged failure by the public prosecutor's office to include in the file and communicate to the defence certain relevant documents which are in its possession (Complaint declared admissible).
Article 26 of the Convention :
(a) Where it is alleged that the members of the jury could have been particularly open to influence by a press campaign concerning the accused, an application for the case to be referred to another court on grounds of legitimate suspicion (art. 542 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) constitutes a remedv which has to be exhausted.
(b) Where it is alleged that certain relevant documents have neither been included in the criminal file nor communicated to the defence by the public prosecutor's office, a request for the review of the trial (art . 443, para. 3 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) is not a remedy the preliminary exhaustion of which is required.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3) 26
1 Citers



 
 Attorney General v British Broadcasting Council; HL 1981 - [1981] AC 303; [1980] 3 All ER 161; [1980] 3 WLR 109
 
Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] QB 1
1982
CA
Sach LJ, Shaw LJ, Lord Denning MR (dissenting)
Media, Company, Human Rights
The Defendants' professional skills were engaged to present the plaintiff company in a good light, and an injunction was granted to restrain them from doing the opposite. Sach LJ said: "even in the commercial field, ethics and good faith are not to be regarded as merely opportunist or expedient" and Shaw LJ: "There is the larger question of the undesirability of presenting simulated trials of the subject matter of pending or prospective litigation on so influential a medium of publicity as television. This must be a matter of degree. When the presentation appears to encroach upon the function and authority of the judicature, the limits of tolerance are clearly exceeded".
Lord Denning MR emphasised that the right of privacy is fundamental. English law "should conform as far as possible with the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Horsham Justices ex parte Farquharson [1982] 1 QB 762
1982
CA
Lord Denning MR, Shaw and Ackner LJJ
Contempt of Court, Media
Premature publication in contravention of a postponement order under section 4(2) of which the publisher was aware is a contempt of court notwithstanding section 6(b). Shaw LJ: “The words ‘pending or imminent’ have been held to include the possible (not necessarily the inevitable) outcome of legal process”. Lord Denning (dissenting): "[Counsel] suggested that once an order is made by a court under section 4(2), and a newspaper publishes in breach of it, then the newspaper is automatically guilty of a contempt of court without any inquiry as to whether the order was rightly made or not. I cannot accept this suggestion for one moment. It would mean that every court in the land would be given a new power, by its own order, to postpone indefinitely publication in the newspapers of the whole or any part of the proceedings before it, or in another court. Such an order could be made, and would be made, against the newspaper without their having any notice of it or any opportunity of being heard on it. They have no right of appeal against it. It could be done on the application of one party, and the acquiescence of the other, without the court itself giving much, if any, thought to the public interest. It would be nothing more nor less than a power, by consent of the parties, to muzzle the press. ... Parliament has, I think, guarded against this danger. It has done so by [section 6(b)]." and "It has long been settled that the courts have power to make an order postponing publication (but not prohibiting it) if the postponement is necessary for the furtherance of justice in proceedings which are pending or imminent. It was so held in [Clement] which was approved by the House of Lords in Scott v Scott ..."
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Reigate Justices ex parte Argus Newspapers and Larcombe; 1983 - (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 181
 
Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23; [1983] 1 All ER 241; [1983] ICR 99
1983

Woolf J
Media, Judicial Review, Employment
Prerogative remedies are only available to impugn a decision of a tribunal which is performing a public duty. Judicial review is not applicable in a strict master and servant relationship based on private contract of employment as there is no element of public law involved. Woolf J stressed that there should be no automatic intervention by a civil court to stay other proceedings, and there is no general inhibition upon an employer dismissing an employee in relation to conduct which is also the subject of incomplete criminal proceedings. While the court must have jurisdiction to intervene to prevent serious injustice occurring, it will only do so in very clear cases in which the applicant can show that there is a real danger and not merely notional danger that there would be a miscarriage of justice in criminal proceedings if the court did not intervene.
An employer may by his contract of employment fetter his right to determine the contract by notice or summarily. There ought not be be and there is no longer a fixed rule against specific performance of an employment contract.
1 Citers



 
 Lynch v British Broadcasting Corporation; QBNI 1983 - [1983] NI 193 QBD

 
 Attorney-General v English; HL 1983 - [1983] 1 AC 116
 
Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others Times, 12 February 1983
12 Feb 1983
CA
Lord Lane CJ, Ackner LJ, Oliver LJ
Media, Contempt of Court
The Attorney General brought contempt proceedings against five newspapers who had wriitten about two entries made to Buckingham Palace by Michael Fagan. Amongst the newspapers found guilty of contempt was The Sunday Times. Held: The newspapers were guilty because the publications created a risk that the jury might be prejudiced.
Oliver LJ said: "The course of justice is not just concerned with the outcome of proceedings. It is concerned with the whole process of the law, including the freedom of a person accused of a crime to elect, so far as the law permits him to do so, the mode of trial which he prefers and to conduct his defence in the way which seems best to him and to his advisers. Any extraneous factor or external pressure which impedes or restricts that election or that conduct, or which impels a person accused to adopt a course in the conduct of his own defence which he does not wish to adopt, deprives him to an extent of the freedom of choice which the law confers upon him and is, in my judgment, not only a prejudice but a serious prejudice." He found the publication objectionable on the basis that The Sunday Times seemed to be "gunning" for Fagan whose solicitor said "because it was the article which prompted him to decide that Fagan should be tried on indictment on the assault charge and that of driving away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. It was the direct and immediate effect of the article which determined Fagan's option for summary trial and kept the assault charge hanging over him until October."
1 Citers



 
 Dudgeon v The United Kingdom; ECHR 24-Feb-1983 - [1983] ECHR 2; 7525/76; (1983) 5 EHRR 573
 
Attorney-General v Able and Others [1983] 3 WLR 845; [1984] 1 QB 795; [1984] 1 All ER 277
28 Apr 1983
QBD
Woolf LJ
Crime, Administrative, Criminal Practice, Media
The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing suicide. The stated aim of the booklet was to help readers overcome the fear of dying. Held: The offence would be committed only in the particular circumstances of the booklet being supplied to a particular individual considering suicide and with the intent of assisting or encouraging him. The offence was not committed by the general distribution of the booklet. However the court should also be reluctant to make declarations in advance as to the legality or otherwise of particular acts. That risked usurping the function of the court which considered a particular set of circumstances.
Suicide Act 1961 2(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ lip ]
 
Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 892
1984
CA
Sir John Donaldson MR
Intellectual Property, Media
The defendant had acquired illegal tapes of telephone conversations which it said implicated the plaintiff. He sought to restrain publication of the material pending forthcoming discliplinary charges at the Jockey Club. Held: The court had to find a balance of justice. The court spoke of the media and the public interest.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: "The media, to use a term which comprises not only the newspapers, but also television and radio, are an essential foundation of any democracy. In exposing crime, anti-social behaviour and hypocrisy, and in campaigning for reform and propagating the views of minorities, they perform an invaluable function. However, they are peculiarly vulnerable to the error of confusing the public interest with their own interest. Usually these interests march hand in hand, but not always. In the instant case, pending a trial, it is impossible to see what public interest would be served by publishing the contents of the tape which would not equally be served by giving them to the police or to the Jockey Club. Any wider publication could only serve the interests of the Daily Mirror."
The public interest may better be served by passing information to the police than publishing it. If it turns out that the suspicions are without foundation, the confidence can then still be protected.
1 Citers


 
X County Council v A and another [1984] 1 WLR 1422; [1985] All ER 53
1984

Balcombe J
Children, Media
The court made orders about the future of the child born to Mary Bell, who had been convicted at the age of 11 of the manslaughter of two little boys. He was asked to protect the new identities under which the child and her mother were living. Without a court order publication would not be a contempt of court. However, wardship proceedings, like other proceedings concerning the care and upbringing of children, are held in private in the higher courts and reporting them without leave may be a contempt. An order was made allowing the publication but only in such a way as to protect their identities. On the analogy of a Mareva injunction, he granted it against the world. He considered that if the court could protect proprietary interests in this way it ought also to be able to protect the interests of its wards. He was also conscious of the unfairness to the particular newspaper concerned in the case if it alone was prohibited from publication.
Administration of Justice Act 1960 12(1)(a)
1 Citers



 
 Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Tisdall Case); HL 1984 - [1985] AC 339; [1984] 3 All ER 601; [1984] 3 WLR 986
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.