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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 43 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
A v M (Family Proceedings: Publicity) [2000] 1 FLR 562
2000
FD
Charles J
Media, Children
In the course of a child residence and contact dispute, M made allegations against F of abuse against the child C. The allegations were investigated and substantially rejected. M passed private court materials to the press. F obtained an injunction against her, but she withdrew from the proceedings. F now sought an injunction against the media. Held: The injunction should be granted. The court's inherent jurisdiction to protect the well being of C. Though materials may be in the public domain, repetitions could still be hurtful and damaging to C. The need for the freedom of speech was to be balanced against the paramount importance given to C's interests. In this case that balance was in favour of the injunction.
1 Citers
Schellenberg v British Broadcasting Corporation [2000] EMLR 296; [1999] EWHC 851 (QB)
2000
QBD
Eady J
Media, Defamation
The claimant had settled defamation actions against the Guardian and the Sunday Times on disadvantageous terms, when it seemed likely that he was about to lose. He then pressed on with this almost identical action against the BBC. Held: A court may strike out a defamation claim as abuse of process if there is evidence that no proper advantage will flow to the claimant for pursuing it. The court rejected the submission that he should not do so as this would deprive the claimant of his 'constitutional right' to trial by jury: "I see no reason why such cases require to be subjected to a different pre-trial regime. It is necessary to apply the overriding objective even in those categories of litigation and in particular to have regard to proportionality. Here there are tens of thousands of pounds of costs at stake and several weeks of court time. I must therefore have regard to the possible benefits that might accrue to the claimant as rendering such a significant expenditure potentially worthwhile." The overriding objective's requirement for proportionality meant that he was bound to ask whether "the game is worth the candle": "I am afraid I cannot accept that there is any realistic prospect of a trial yielding any tangible or legitimate advantage such as to outweigh the disadvantages for the parties in terms of expense, and the wider public in terms of court resources."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
News Verlags Gmbh and CoKG v Austria [2000] ECHR 5; 31457/96; (2001) 31 EHRR 8
11 Jan 2000
ECHR
E Palm, P
Human Rights, Media
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
The rights in article 10 include the right to choose not just the content of what is to be expressed but also the form of such expression: "The Court recalls that it is not for the Court, or for the national courts for that matter, to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists. Article 10 protects not only the substance of ideas and information but also the form in which they are conveyed."
[ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ]
GKR Karate (UK) Limited v Porch, Yorkshire Post Newspaper, Holmes Gazette, 27 January 2000; Times, 09 February 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 180; (2000) EMLR 396
17 Jan 2000
QBD
Sir Oliver Popplewell
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Media
The claimant sought damages alleging defamation. The judge ordered certain elements of the case to be heard first, and others, if necessary later. Although the case had been begun under the old rules, the new civil procedure regime gave the judge much wider powers of management, and defamation cases were notoriously expensive and lengthy and the powers were particularly appropriate for use in defamation cases. As to qualified privilege: "A privileged occasion exists if the public is entitled to know the particular information. That is, if it was the journalist's social or moral duty to communicate it and the interest of the particular public to receive it. This is determined in the light of all the circumstances of the publication and, in particular, whether the sources were, or appeared to be reliable, to a reasonable and responsible journalist. While Lord Nicholls' ten examples are not to be taken as written in stone, they form the basic framework upon which a judge can do the balancing exercise." and "In particular, I am adjured to avoid hindsight, attach importance to the freedom of expression, be slow to conclude that publication was not in the public interest, to resolve any lingering doubts in favour of publication, and to be flexible in my approach."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda) v Hosteleria Asturiana SA (Hoasa). C-293/98; [2000] EUECJ C-293/98
3 Feb 2000
ECJ
European, Media, Intellectual Property
Europa The question whether the reception by a hotel establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals and their distribution by cable to the various rooms of that hotel is an act of communication to the public or reception by the public is not governed by Directive 93/83 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, and must consequently be decided in accordance with national law.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Columbia Tristar Home Video (International) Inc v Polygram Film International BV (Formerly Manifesto Film Sales BV) [2000] EWCA Civ 32
8 Feb 2000
CA
Contract, Media
The court considered a contract requiring access to be given to accounts records for auditing licence fees.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
McKerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices; McKerry v Director of Public Prosecutions Gazette, 16 March 2000; Times, 29 February 2000; [2001] EMLR 5
29 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Bingham
Child Support, Criminal Practice, Media
The courts must recognise the need to protect the identity of children involved in criminal proceedings. This derived both from national statute and from international law and practice. Nevertheless, the court had the discretion in appropriate cases to order disclosure of the name of a child convicted before it of criminal charges where the public interest properly required this. As to the giving of reasons for their decision by magistrates: "It is not usual for magistrates to give detailed reasons; nor is it usual for juries, who make very important decisions affecting human rights, to give any reasons at all. If an aggrieved party wishes to obtain more detailed reasons from a magistrates' court, then a request can be made to state a case, as was done here, and the justices have given their reasons at somewhat greater length."
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 49(4A)
1 Citers
Sir Elton Hercules John, Happenstance Ltd, William A Bong Ltd, J Bondi Ltd, Eversheds (A Firm) v Express Newspapers, Rosie Boycott, Rachel Baird [2000] EWHC QB 130
3 Mar 2000
QBD
Contract, Media
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Victor Chandler International v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and another; CA 8-Mar-2000 - Times, 08 March 2000; Gazette, 16 March 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 299; [2000] 1 WLR 1296
Regina v Broadcasting Standards Commission, Ex Parte British Broadcasting Corporation Times, 12 April 2000; Gazette, 28 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 116; [2001] QB 885
6 Apr 2000
CA
The Master Of The Rolls, Lady Justice Hale And Lord Mustill
Media, Intellectual Property, Human Rights
The Act protects the privacy of a corporate body. A television company which secretly filmed in a company's store could be held to have infringed the privacy of the company by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The Act went further than the Human Rights Convention in this respect, but there is no reason to limit the extent of the operation of the Act to match the convention. "An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate."
Lord Mustill said: "To my mind the privacy of a human being denotes at the same time the personal 'space' in which the individual is free to be itself, and also the carapace, or shell, or umbrella, or whatever other metaphor is preferred, which protects that space from intrusion. An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate."
Broadcasting Standards Act 1996 110 111 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
BBC, Petitioners Times, 11 April 2000; 2001 SCCR 440
11 Apr 2000
HCJ
Media, Criminal Practice, Scotland
The absence of a jury from a criminal trial was not sufficient of itself to set aside the rule against the broadcasting of criminal proceedings. To set aside the rule, the onus was on the broadcaster to justify the departure from the rule and to persuade the court that there would be no interference in the proper administration of justice. It was not for the courts to justify acting in accordance with the rule.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
1 Citers
Jupiter Unit Trust Managers Ltd v Johnson Fry Asset Managers Plc [2000] EWHC QB 110
19 Apr 2000
QBD
Morland J
Media
Comparative advertising complaint
[ Bailii ]
John and Others v Express Newspapers and Others; CA 26-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 26 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 135; [2000] 1 WLR 1931
Bergens Tidende And Others v Norway 26132/95; (2001) 31 EHRR 16; [2000] ECHR 190
2 May 2000
ECHR
Human Rights, Media, Defamation
A newspaper complained that its rights under Article 10 of the Convention had been infringed by a libel action which a cosmetic surgeon had successfully brought against it in respect of defamatory articles it had published saying he was incompetent. Held: The complaint succeeded, but the rights of the press are to be balanced by responsibilities. As to the general principles, the Court referred to its well-established case law and the freedom of expression which constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, subject to Article 10(2) which leaves the national authorities with a certain margin of appreciation and continued: "The Court further recalls the essential function the press fulfils in a democratic society. Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards 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."
In applying these principles, the Court came back to the same point: "Where, as in the present case, measures taken by the national authorities are capable of discouraging the press from disseminating information on matters of legitimate public concern, careful scrutiny of the proportionality of the measures on the part of the Court is called for." However, the Court further observes that Article 10 of the Convention does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted 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."
In view of the importance of the right to freedom of expression, restrictions upon it have to be "established convincingly".
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Video Appeals Committee of British Board of Film Classification (ex parte British Board of Film Classification); Admn 16-May-2000 - Times, 07 June 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 341
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc; CA 26-May-2000 - Times, 15 June 2000; Gazette, 22 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 179; [2001] Ch 257
BBC, Petitioners (No 2) Times, 13 June 2000
13 Jun 2000
HCJ
Media, Human Rights, Scotland
A ban on the televising of the Lockerbie trial was not a breach of the broadcasters rights under article 10. The fact that arrangements had been made for the trial to be relayed by television under strict conditions to relatives of the deceased, but not for general use was not determinative. The exercise by the Lord Advocate after discussion with the US government of his discretion to allow such transmission, had not been demonstrated to give rise to a devolution issue.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites
British Broadcasting Corporation v Talksport Ltd; ChD 29-Jun-2000 - Times, 29 June 2000; Gazette, 06 July 2000
Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger; QBD 21-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 05 October 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 662; [2000] UKHRR 796; [2002] Crim LR 64; [2001] EMLR 4; [2001] 2 All ER 244
Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation; FD 25-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWHC Fam 2; [2000] EWHC 3 (Fam); [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2000] 3 FCR 509; [2000] Fam Law 886; [2001] 2 WLR 253; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197; FD/00P10636
HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening); HL 3-Aug-2000 - Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 03 August 2000; [2000] UKHL 45; [2000] 4 All ER 385; [2000] 3 WLR 625; [2001] 1 AC 268
British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly Times, 09 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197
9 Aug 2000
FD
Munby J
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
The interview for television of a child ward of court who had gone to live with members of a religious sect was not necessarily a contempt of court. There are three groups of ways in which a ward's interests can be protected. First where the wardship would lead to no special action, and the ward would take action himself, where the jurisdiction was exercisable, but after a balancing exercise in which the child's interests were not paramount, and where a major decision was to be made in which case the jurisdiction was exercisable. Provided the media kept within such rules as did apply, they should not need to apply to the court, and nor would they be in contempt. "in relation to the media the exercise of the court's inherent parens patriae or wardship jurisdiction is divided into three parts: the first part, in which the jurisdiction is not exercisable at all and the child is left to whatever remedies against the media the law would give an adult in comparable circumstances; a second part in which the jurisdiction is exercisable, but in circumstances where, because the court is exercising only its "protective" jurisdiction, the child's interests are not paramount and where a so-called balancing exercise has to be performed; and the third part, in which, because the court is exercising its "custodial" jurisdiction, the child's interests are paramount. Well known examples of cases falling into the first category, where no injunction can be granted, are In re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1975] Fam 47; R v Central Television plc [1994] Fam 192 and M v British Broadcasting Corpn [1997] 1 FLR 51."
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Wagstaff etc; QBD 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 292
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed Times, 07 September 2000
7 Sep 2000
CA
Immigration, Judicial Review, Media
A newspaper report written by a journalist quoting an unnamed if reliable source as to words spoken by the Secretary of State was insufficient to found the serious allegation that the Secretary had prejudged the applicant's application for naturalisation. The report suffered three defects. The source was unnamed, the reporter was himself quoting a party who had not heard the words himself, and the context in which the words had been spoken was unclear. Even had they been established, the words alleged would be insufficient to support the alleged pre-judgement.
Regina v Independent Television Commission ex parte Tvdanmark 1 Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 389
8 Sep 2000
Admn
Media
[ Bailii ]
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd and Others v Chase Manhattan Bank and Others Times, 19 September 2000; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 30
19 Sep 2000
QBD
Aikens J
Insurance, Media
As a contract for speculation, a duty of utmost good faith is not implied in a contract insurance. The duty of disclosure by an insured can be limited by the contract as can the freedom of the insurance company to avoid liability. If the wording is clear enough, even a deliberate non-disclosure amounting concealment might be excused. Nevertheless the contract might be rescindable at the option of the insurer.
1 Citers
McLaughlin and McLaughlin v Oldham and Century Newspapers Limited [2000] NIEHC 35
30 Sep 2000
NIHC
Northern Ireland, Media
[ Bailii ]
Du Roy And Malaurie v France 34000/96; [2000] ECHR 443; [2000] ECHR 445
3 Oct 2000
ECHR
Human Rights, Media
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The court strongly affirmed "the interest of democratic society in ensuring and maintaining a free press."
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Others, Ex Parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Others etc; ECJ 10-Oct-2000 - Times, 10 October 2000; C-376/99; C-74/99
Retail Media and Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions and Macclesfield Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 398
11 Oct 2000
Admn
Planning, Media
[ Bailii ]
Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Holmes and Others Times, 20 October 2000
20 Oct 2000
FD
Children, Human Rights, Media
A newspaper sought to investigate the policies adopted by the council as regards inter-racial fostering. The council relied upon the Act to justify restrictions it sought to be imposed on the reporting. The case was not affected by the Children Act, and therefore no balancing exercise was required. The policy restricting publication was to be looked at under the convention, and limited only to the extent required. The injunction would be relaxed to permit publication provided the case was appropriately anonymised, and social workers with no opportunity to answer criticism were not named.
Children Act 1989 1(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 12
British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited [2001] FSR 32; [2000] EWHC Ch 55
25 Oct 2000
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property, Media, Torts - Other
The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood. Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of another's trade mark in comparitive advertising. In this case the advertisement, though possibly ambiguous was not misleading: "the use was honest comparative advertising. I suspect the real reason BA do not like it is precisely because it is true."
Trade Marks Act 10(6) - Comparative Advertising Directive of 6th October 1997 (97/55/EEC)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Independent Television Commission, Ex Parte TVDanmark 1 Ltd Gazette, 26 October 2000; Times, 25 October 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 74
25 Oct 2000
CA
Media, Administrative, European
The ITC did not have power to refuse to consider a renewed application for permission by a British broadcasting company to exercise its exclusive rights to televise matches of the Danish National football team in a forthcoming tournament as against a Danish public service broadcaster who would reach a greater proportion of the Danish population. Attempts to bring such events to a wider audience were properly exercised at the time of the grant of the rights, but not later after they had been granted.
Television Broadasting transmitted across Frontiers Directive 1989/55/EEC - Broadcasting Act 1996
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Orange Personal Communications Ltd and Another Times, 15 November 2000; Gazette, 23 November 2000
25 Oct 2000
Admn
Administrative, Media, Licensing, Constitutional
Once rights by way of licences had been granted to a party by virtue of a statute, an amendment to those licences required the Secretary to be explicit with Parliament when altering the licences. The Act provided clear rules for making amendments to licences. The Secretary purported to amend the licences to comply with a European Directive, but the new regulations did not specifically disapply the regime for amending the licences. He should have made it clear in the statutory instrument that the protections were being removed. The regulations made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act which, if valid, took away valuable rights of Orange which they had enjoyed under the Telecommunications Act 1984, were ultra vires, on the ground that the regulations had failed explicitly to state that rights enjoyed under primary legislation were being taken away.
Telecommunications Act 1984 12 13 14 15 - Telecommunications (Licence Modification) (Standard Schedules) Regulations 1999 (1999 no 2540) - European Communities Act 1972 2(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Cable and Wireless (Dominica) Limited v Marpin Telecoms and Broadcasting Company Limited Times, 09 January 2001; [2000] UKPC 42; [2001] 1 WLR 1123
30 Oct 2000
PC
Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Media, Human Rights, Commonwealth
(Dominica) The importance of telecommunications in today's society meant that it would be an infringement of the right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the constitution to grant a monopoly right to provide such services within a nation. Interference with the provision of a telecommunications service can amount to interfering with the freedom of expression of those who would wish to use that service. The court must then decide whether such a restriction was reasonably required in a democratic society, to protect the rights and freedoms of others. It then fell to the challenger to show that it was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited; HL 2-Nov-2000 - Times, 03 November 2000; [2000] UKHL 57; [2001] 2 AC 277; [2000] 4 All ER 913; [2000] 9 BHRC 497; [2000] 3 WLR 1670; [2000] NI 410; [2001] UKHRR 184; [2001] EMLR 1
Regina v Hardwicke and Thwaites Times, 16 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 60
10 Nov 2000
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy Justice Alliott and Justice Bell
Criminal Evidence, Media, Crime
Malpractice or entrapment by those outside the legal system was not to be considered in the same way as such behaviour by those who had a formal part in the investigation of crime. That a journalist might encourage a crime for a story should not necessarily lead to exclusion of the evidence. The journalist's crime was venial in comparison to that of the appellants, and their behaviour would not undermine trust as would similar behaviour in law enforcement officers.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
[ Bailii ]
Commission v Belgium C-384/99; [2000] EUECJ C-384/99
30 Nov 2000
ECJ
European, Media
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Telecommunications - Interconnection of networks - Interoperability of services - Provision of universal service
[ Bailii ]
Regina ex parte Matthias Rath B v Matthias Rath Ltd the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd and its Reviewer Times, 10 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 428
6 Dec 2000
Admn
Media, Human Rights
Adjudications of the Advertising Standards Authority are prescribed by law, and the codes of practice are issued by virtue of statutory authority. The codes described a clear system for adjudicating complaints, and therefore anyone publishing advertising material could know in advance what rules applied, and what penalties he might incur. The need to ensure accuracy in health advertising was a sufficient purpose to justify the restriction on the freedom of expression.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 10 - Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (1988 No 915)
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Others, ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited and others; HL 7-Dec-2000 - Times, 20 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 60; [2001] 1 All ER 850; [2001] 1 WLR 127
Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd; CA 18-Dec-2000 - Times, 10 January 2001; Gazette, 08 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 334; [2001] 1 WLR 515; [2001] 1 All ER 991
Smithkline Beecham Plc and Advertising Standards Authority [2000] EWHC; [2000] EWHC Admin 442
21 Dec 2000
Admn
Mr Justice Hunt
Media, Health
The appellants sold a soft drink. They advertised it using a toothbrush as part of the image. They also said 'Ribena Toothkind does not encourage tooth decay', and cited support from the British Dental Association. The Authority held that this suggested that the drink had health giving qualities, and banned the advertisements. The company appealed. The Authority relied on a report by an expert who had allied himself with complainants against the company beforehand. Held: The independence of experts in such procedures is vital. The person of whom complaint was made acted as a consultee only. This court must act as the hypothetical observer, the reasonable man, and assess whether in any case there has in fact been a real danger, risk or possibility of unjust bias. There was no such risk apparent here. The adjudication stood.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Douglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1); CA 21-Dec-2000 - Times, 16 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 353; [2001] QB 967; [2001] 2 WLR 992; [2001] EMLR 9; [2001] FSR 40; [2001] 1 FLR 982; 9 BHRC 543; [2001] UKHRR 223; [2001] HRLR 26; [2001] 2 All ER 289; [2002] 1 FCR 289
