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: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 25 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commissioner, Ex parte Owen [1985] QB 1153
1985
CA
May LJ
Media, Administrative
May LJ said: "Where the reasons given by a statutory body for taking or not taking a particular course of action are not mixed and can clearly be disentangled, but where the court is quite satisfied that even though one reason may be bad in law, nevertheless the statutory body would have reached precisely the same decision on the other valid reasons, then this court will not interfere by way of judicial review."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Arundel Justices, Ex parte Westminster Press Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 708
1985


Contempt of Court, Media
The basic rule is that anything said in open court may be reported. Withholding the name from the public during the proceedings will provide the basis for the making of an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 11
1 Citers


 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte Owen [1985] QB 1153
1985
CA
May LJ, Taylor J
Media, Judicial Review
The BBC is a creation of the Crown through the grant of a Charter in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and it exercises its functions under agreement with and licences from the Government. The court expressly declined to express a view on the question of its susceptibility to judicial review.
May LJ, citing Cromer Ring, said: "I respectfully agree that the material law is as stated by Forbes J, but with one qualification. Where the reasons given by a statutory body for taking or not taking a particular course of action are not mixed and can clearly be disentangled, but where the court is quite satisfied that even though one reason be bad in law, nevertheless the statutory body would have reached precisely the same decision on the other valid reasons, then this court will not interfere by way of judicial review. In such a case looked at realistically and with justice, such a decision of such a body ought not to be disturbed. "
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Attorney-General v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 83; [1987] QB 1
1986
CA
John Donaldson MR, Parker LJJ
Media, Contempt of Court
When considering a complaint of contempt of court against a newspaper, it should be recognised that any criminal trial, by its very nature, causes all involved in it to become progressively more inward looking, with the capacity to study the evidence given and the submissions made in the courtroom, to the exclusion of other sources of information. The words 'substantial risk' of prejudice mean 'not insubstantial'. The test of ‘substantial risk’ and ‘serious prejudice’ are separate but overlapping.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
1 Citers


 
Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407; 9815/82; [1986] ECHR 7
8 Jul 1986
ECHR
Ryssdal P
Human Rights, Defamation, Media
Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society'. "The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance. No doubt article 10(2) enables the reputation of others--that is to say, of all individuals--to be protected, and this protection extends to politicians too, even when they are not acting in their private capacity; but in such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues."
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Felixstowe Justices ex parte Leigh; CA 1987 - [1987] 1 QB 582
 
Maxwell v Pressdram Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 298; [1987] 1 All ER 656
1987
CA
Kerr LJ, Parker LJ
Defamation, Vicarious Liability, Damages, Contempt of Court, Media
The court was asked whether disclosure should be ordered in the context of the statutory privilege which was created by s.10 of the 1981 Act. The publisher defendant had deposed that it would justify the material. At trial, however, the defence of justification was abandoned and the judge said he would make a (strong) comment adverse to the defendant in the course of his charge of the jury, but he held that the witness need not reveal the source of his material. Held: The appeal failed. A plea of negligence is insufficient to found a claim for exemplary damages. Some conscious wrongdoing is necessary.
Parker LJ made the point that "it is not sufficient merely to say that the information which is sought (to be obtained) is information which is relevant to the determination of an issue before the court. Were that so, it would always be possible to obtain an order for disclosure . "
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10
1 Citers


 
Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1988] Ch 333; [1987] 3 All ER 276; [1987] 3 WLR 942
1987
CA
Lloyd LJ, Lord Donaldson MR
Media, Contempt of Court
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: "Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be committed if no specific order has been made by the court affecting anyone other than those involved in the proceedings. At common law, if the court makes an order regulating its own procedure and the purpose of the order is plainly to protect the administration of justice, then anyone who subverts that order will be guilty of contempt".
There was no room for a state of mind which fell short of intention. Lloyd LJ said: " . . that intent may exist, even though there is no desire to interfere with the course of justice. Nor need it be the sole intent. It may be inferred, even though there is no overt proof. The more obvious the interference with the course of justice, the more readily will the requisite intent be inferred."
Sir Donaldson said of an application for contempt against a third party that: "I should like to emphasise with all the power at my command that this case is not primarily about national security or official secrets. It is about the right of private citizens and public authorities to seek and obtain the protection of the courts for confidential information which they claim to be their property"
Lord Donaldson MR set out the intent required to be shown: ". . the power of the court to commit for contempt where the conduct complained of is specifically intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice. Such an intent need not be expressly avowed or admitted, but can be inferred from all the circumstances, including the foreseeability of the consequences of the conduct. Nor need it be the sole intention of the contemnor. An intent is to be distinguished from motive or desire . ."
1 Citers



 
 Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.1); HL 13-Aug-1987 - [1987] UKHL 13; [1987] 1 WLR 1248; [1987] 3 All ER 316
 
Re L (A Minor) (Wardship: Freedom of Publication) [1988] 1 All ER 418
1988
FD
Booth J
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
The mere fact that a child is known to be a ward of court is not sufficient to make any publication identifying the child a contempt of court.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 12
1 Citers


 
Rickless v United Artists Corporation [1988] QB 40
1988
ChD
Hobhouse J
Damages, Intellectual Property, Media
The Act created a private right to performers. Although it might appear to provide criminal sanctions only, performers had the right to give or withhold consent to the use of their performances and to enforce that right by action in the civil courts. This statutory right was not purely personal, but survived the death of the performer and vested in his or her personal representatives, so that in the absence of consent of a performer or his or her personal representatives, there was an actionable breach. A feature film (Trail of the Pink Panther – "Trail") starring the late Peter Sellers had been made by use of cutting floor clips from previous films made with his consent. In two films, The Pink Panther Strikes Again and Revenge of the Pink Panther his consent extended to the use in this way of the cutting floor clips, and ordered the producer companies to account for percentages of the gross receipts of Trail as sums derived from Strikes and Revenge. In the case of three films where there had been no consent, damages were awarded for breach, or inducing breach, of contract in the sum of $1,000,000.
Dramatic and Musical Performers Protection Act 1958 1
1 Citers


 
Regina v Evesham Justices, ex parte McDonnagh [1988] 1 QB 553
1988
QBD
Watkins LJ, Mann J
Criminal Practice, Media
The court considered the existence of a power in the magistrates court to order a hearing to be held in camera and referred to section 11 of the 1981 Act. Watkins LJ said: "However, I am bound to say that I am impressed with the argument that the action taken by the justices in the present case had nothing to do with the administration of justice. It seems to me that the concern shown by the justices for not giving publicity to Mr. Hocking's home address was solely motivated by their sympathy for his well-being if his former wife should learn of his home address and harass him yet again. That kind of predicament is not, unfortunately, unique. There are undoubtedly many people who find themselves defending criminal charges who for all manner of reasons would like to keep unrevealed their identity, their home address in particular. Indeed, I go so far as to say that in the vast majority of cases, in magistrates' courts anyway, defendants would like their identity to be unrevealed and would be capable of advancing seemingly plausible reasons why that should be so. But, section 11 was not enacted for the benefit of the comfort and feelings of defendants. The general rule enunciated in the passage I have quoted from Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Limited [1979] A.C. 440, 450, may not, as is there stated, be departed from save where the nature or the circumstances of proceedings are such that the application of the general rule in its entirety would frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice."
Contempt of Court Act 1981 11
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd; QBD 1988 - [1988] 2 WLR 805
 
Canadian Newspapers Co v Canada [1988] 1 SCR 122
1988


Media
The court made order protecting from publication the identities of parties complaining of sexual assaults.
1 Citers



 
 Muller And Others v Switzerland; ECHR 24-May-1988 - 10737/84; [1988] ECHR 5; (1988) 13 EHRR 212

 
 Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) ('Spycatcher'); HL 13-Oct-1988 - [1990] 1 AC 109; [1988] UKHL 6; [1987] 1 WLR 776; [1988] 3 All ER 545

 
 Re W (Wards) (Publication of Information); FD 1989 - [1989] 1 FLR 246
 
Re C (Wardship: Medical Treatment) (No 2) [1990] Fam 39
1989
CA
Lord Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ, Nicholls LJ
Media, Children
The court had already made an order about the way in which the health professionals were able to look after a severely disabled baby girl; an injunction was granted prohibiting identification of the child, her parents, her current carers and the hospital where she was being looked after. Although the child herself would know nothing of any publicity, she was entitled to medical confidentiality, and her welfare would be affected by the peace of mind of her carers. "Unless the public interest or a private right enforceable by the courts requires an injunction, the courts cannot intervene. On the facts of this case such intervention can only be justified upon one or other or a combination of two bases. These are (1) that the injunction is necessary for the welfare of C or for safeguarding her rights and (2) that the injunction is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice." An obligation of confidentiality was owed to a baby by those who had been caring for her.
1 Citers


 
Director General of Fair Trading v Tobyward [1989] 2 All ER 266; [1989] 1 WLR 517
1989
ChD
Hoffmann J
Media, Consumer, Litigation Practice
The company advertised a product as assisting in permanent weight loss. The Advertising Standards Authority had found the advertisements to be misleading, but the company persisted, and the Authority referred the case to the applicant, who sought an injunction. Held: The court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction requested. Hoffmann J required no cross-undertaking in damages from the Director. Whatever he might think about the policy, it is well established that "the usual practice is that no cross undertaking is required" when the Crown is seeking an interim injunction to enforce the law.
Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (1988 No 915)
1 Citers


 
Edmonton Journal v Alberta (Attorney General) [1989] 2 SCR 1326; 64 DLR (4th) 577; [1990] 1 WWR 577; 103 AR 321; 71 Alta LR (2d) 273; 102 NR 321; [1989] CarswellAlta 198; EYB 1989-66926; JE 90-47; [1989] SCJ No 124 (QL); 18 ACWS (3d) 894; [1989] ACS no 124; 41 CPC (2d) 109; 45 CRR 1
1989

Wilson, Cory JJ
Media, Human Rights
Supreme Court of Canada - The court made orders for anonymisation of parties to proceedings to protect them from from embarrassment or humiliation.
Wilson J said: "It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions. The vital importance of the concept cannot be over-emphasised."
Cory J said: "Listeners and readers, members of the public have a right to information pertaining to public institutions and particularly the courts. Here the press plays a fundamentally important role. It is exceedingly difficult for many, if not most, people to attend a court trial . . Those who cannot attend rely in large measure upon the press to inform them about court proceedings - the nature of the evidence that was called, the arguments presented, the comments made by the trial judge . . It is only through the press that most individuals can really learn of what is transpiring in the courts. They as listeners or readers have a right to receive this information. Only then can they make an assessment of the institution. Discussion of court cases and constructive criticism of court proceedings is dependent upon the receipt by the public of information as to what transpired in court. Practically speaking, this information can only be obtained from the newspapers or other media."
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Radio Telefis Eireann And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Application For Interim Measures) C-91/89; [1989] EUECJ C-91/89R; [1989] ECR 1141; [1990] FSR 87; [1989] 4 CMLR 749
11 May 1989
ECJ
T Koopmans, P
European, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Media
ECJ Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Practices preventing the publishing and sale of comprehensive weekly television guides.
Joined cases 76, 77 and 91/89 R.
Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions for grant - Serious and irreparable damage
(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2))
[ Bailii ]
 
Lord Advocate v Scotsman Publications [1989] UKHL 7; 1989 SLT 705; [1989] 2 All ER 852; 1989 SC (HL) 122; [1989] 1 FSR 580; [1989] 3 WLR 358; [1990] 1 AC 812
6 Jul 1989
HL

Scotland, Media
An interdict was sought to prevent the distribution of a book on the intelligence services.
[ Bailii ]
 
Leary v Britiah Broadcasting Corporatin Unreported, 29 September 1989
29 Sep 1989
CA
Lord Donaldson MR, Ralph Gibson LJ
Media, Contempt of Court
Lord Donaldson MR considered an application for an injunction to prevent a publication which it was said would create a contempt of court, and said: "I am very concerned that no one should think that on a speculative basis you can go to the courts and call upon the publisher of printed material or television or radio material to come forward and tell the court exactly what it is proposed to do, and invite the court to act as a censor. That is not the function of the court. It is different, of course, if there is solid evidence as to what the content of the publication will be and that evidence leads the court to conclude that prima facie there will be a contempt of court. Then it would no doubt be right that the defendant should be invited, but not compelled, to tell the court what in fact he intends to publish, because of course if he does not and there is a prima facie case that there will be contempt he will find himself faced with an injunction. But that is not the same thing as setting the courts up as a censorship body to which people must submit material on pain of being prohibited from publishing it."
Ralph Gibson LJ said: "The primary defence of the administration of justice from unlawful interference by [publications] is the heavy sanction of prosecution if a contempt of court is committed."
1 Citers


 
W v Egdell [1989] EWCA Civ 13; [1990] Ch 359
9 Nov 1989
CA
Bingham LJ
Health Professions, Media
Bingham LJ said: "It has never been doubted that the circumstances here were such as to impose on Dr Egdell a duty of confidence owed to W. He could not lawfully sell the contents of his report to a newspaper . . Nor could he, without a breach of the law as well as professional etiquette, discuss the case in a learned article or in his memoirs or in gossiping with friends, unless he took appropriate steps to conceal the identity of W."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 BBC Enterprises Ltd v Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd and Others; CA 21-Dec-1989 - [1990] 2 All ER 118; [1990] Ch 609; [1990] 2 WLR 1123; [1990] FSR 217
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.