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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 42 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom; ECHR 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 261; 35974/97; [2001] ECHR 298; 36337/97; [2001] 2 FCR 221; (2002) 34 EHRR 19; [2001] Fam Law 506; 11 BHRC 667
 
Re X (Disclosure of Information) [2001] 2 FLR 440
2001
FD
Munby J
Children, Media
There cannot be an expectation that expert evidence given in a children's court will always stay confidential. The various aspects of confidentiality will have greater or lesser weight on the facts of each case. Munby J: "Wrapped up in this concept of confidentiality there are, as it seems to me, a number of different factors and interests which need to be borne in mind:
(i) First, there is the interest of the particular child concerned in maintaining the confidentiality and privacy of the proceedings in which he has been involved, what . . Balcombe LJ referred to as the "curtain of privacy".
(ii) But there is also, secondly, the interest of litigants generally that those who, to use Lord Shaw of Dunfermline's famous words in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 482, "appeal for the protection of the court in the case of [wards]" should not thereby suffer "the consequence of placing in the light of publicity their truly domestic affairs". It is very much in the interests of children generally that those who may wish to have recourse to the court in wardship or other proceedings relating to children are not deterred from doing so by the fear that their private affairs will be exposed to the public gaze – private affairs which often involve matters of the most intimate, personal, painful and potentially embarrassing nature. As Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said: "The affairs are truly private affairs; the transactions are transactions truly intra familiam".
(iii) Thirdly, there is a public interest in encouraging frankness in children's cases, what Nicholls LJ referred to in Brown v Matthews [1990] Ch 662, 681C, as the frank and ready co-operation from people as diverse as doctors, school teachers, neighbours, the child in question, the parents themselves, and other close relations, including other children in the same family, on which the proper functioning of the system depends … it is very much in the interests of children generally that potential witnesses in such proceedings are not deterred from giving evidence by the fear that their private affairs or privately expressed views will be exposed to the public gaze.
(iv) Fourthly, there is a particular public interest in encouraging frankness in children's cases on the part of perpetrators of child abuse of whatever kind . . .
(v) Finally, there is a public interest in preserving faith with those who have given evidence to the family court in the belief that it would remain confidential. However, as both Ralph Gibson LJ in Brown v Matthews [1990] Ch 662, 672B … and Balcombe LJ in In re Manda [1993] Fam 183, 195H … make clear, whilst persons who give evidence in child proceedings can normally assume that their evidence will remain confidential, they are not entitled to assume that it will remain confidential in all circumstances . . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers and others; QBD 8-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 16 January 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 32; [2001] Fam 430; [2001] 1 All ER 908

 
 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd; ChD 11-Jan-2001 - Times, 06 February 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 28; [2001] 2 WLR 967
 
Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another Times, 30 January 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 31; [2001] 2 All ER 385; [2002] FSR 2; [2001] HRLR 31; [2001] EMLR 21; [2001] CP Rep 28; [2001] ECDR 16
11 Jan 2001
ChD
Sir Andrew Morritt
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Human Rights, Media
The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The established test was whether the claimant had a real prospect of succeeding at trial in restraining publication, but the new test was whether he was likely to do so. Nevertheless the difference was so small as to make any calculation fruitless.
The court was asked to restrain the publication of confidential documents, and the effect of the section. The defendants argued that the requirement of likelihood imposed a higher standard than that formulated in American Cyanamid, but the claimant said that his case satisfied whatever the standard was applied. Theoretically and as a matter of language likelihood is slightly higher in the scale of probability than a real prospect of success. But the difference between the two is small. The court could not imagine many (if any) cases which would have succeeded under the American Cyanamid test but will now fail because of the terms of section 12(3). The court applied the test of likelihood without any further consideration of how much more probable that now has to be.
Sir Andrew Morritt set out the approach to be taken: "Of course, the defendants' right to freedom of expression is an element in their democratic right to campaign for the abolition of all animal xenotransplantation or other experimentation. But they may continue to do that whether the injunction sought by Imutran is granted or not. The issue is whether they should be free to do so with Imutran's confidential and secret documents. Many of those documents are of a specialist and technical nature suitable for consideration by specialists in the field but not by the public generally. Given the provisos to the injunction sought there would be no restriction on the ability of the defendants to communicate the information to those specialists connected with the regulatory bodies denoted by Parliament as having special responsibility in the field."
Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
HM Attorney General v Times Newspaper, Kelsey and Leppard [2001] EWCA Civ 38
19 Jan 2001
CA
Waller LJ, Robert Walker LJ, Mance LJ
Media, Litigation Practice
Previous proceedings had been settled by an undertaking given by the newspaper to refrain from publishing certain material subject to provisos. It later sought a variation, the terms of which were not agreed by the Attorney General. It was then learned that the material was to be published in Russia. Held: The matter came on as an urgent appeal but would require full argument, and an immediate order was refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
HM Attorney General v Times Newspaper and others [2001] EMLR 19; [2001] 1 WLR 885; [2001] EWCA Civ 97
25 Jan 2001
CA
Lord Philips MR, Tuckey, Longmore LJJ
Media
The AG sought to restrain publication by the defendant of extracts from a book written by a former member of the security services and was expected to reveal confidential materials
[ Bailii ]

 
 Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd; CA 31-Jan-2001 - Times, 31 January 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001
 
Tammer v Estonia 41205/98; (2001) 37 EHRR 857; [2001] ECHR 83; (2003) 37 EHRR 43
6 Feb 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Media
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and the self-fulfilment of each individual. Criminal penalties imposed in respect of the reporting of a sexual relationship could not be said to violate Article 10 – notwithstanding that the persons concerned were the Prime Minister and a political aide.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Stone; CACD 14-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 22 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 297; [2001] Crim LR 465

 
 Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla; PC 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] 1 WLR 1040; [2001] UKPC 8
 
Observer Publications Limited v Campbell 'Mickey' Matthew The Commissioner of Police and The Attorney General [2001] UKPC 11; 10 BHRC 252
19 Mar 2001
PC
Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Scott of Foscote, Sir Patrick Russell, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Commonwealth, Constitutional, Media, Human Rights
PC (Antigua and Barbuda) The claimant complained of the delay by the respondents in processing their request for a licence to run a radio station. It appealed refusal of constitutional redress and thta its right of free speech had been infringed. The only existing radio stations were a state owned on and one owned by the prime minister's family.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Steen v Her Majesty's Attorney General; Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and Another Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 24 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 403; [2001] EMLR 24; [2001] 2 All ER 655; [2001] QB 1028; [2001] 2 WLR 1713
23 Mar 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ
Contempt of Court, Media
The appellant appealed against a finding of contempt of court at common law as regards a report in Punch published when he had been its editor. Held: The appeal succeeded. The A-G had failed to establish the mens rea of contempt in the appellant.
The issue boiled down to whether an injunction could bind a third party. Lord Phillips MR summarised the principles: "a) Intentional interference with the manner which a judge is conducting a trial can amount to a contempt of court.
b) When in the course of a trial a judge makes an order with the purpose of furthering some aspect of the conduct of the trial, a third party who, with knowledge of that purpose, intentionally acts in such a way as to defeat that purpose can be in contempt of court.
c) When a plaintiff brings an action to preserve an alleged right of confidentiality in information and the court makes an order that the information is not to be published pending trial, the purpose of the order is to protect the confidentiality of the information pending trial. A third party who, with knowledge of the order, publishes the information and thereby destroys its confidentiality will commit a contempt of court. The contempt is committed not because the third party is in breach of the order – the order does not bind the third party. The contempt is committed because the purpose of the judge in making the order is intentionally frustrated with the consequence that the conduct of the trial is disrupted."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
DSG Retail Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council Times, 23 March 2001; Gazette, 11 May 2001
23 Mar 2001
QBD

Media, Consumer, Crime
A trader can commit the offence of giving a misleading price indication without the prosecution having to identify any particular goods which had been offered for sale at that particular price. The price indication could be given in any of several ways, of which stating a price at a place where a purchase was to be completed was only one. In this case an offer to beat any other price offered locally was in fact intended to be limited in ways not indicated, and there were additional undisclosed terms and conditions. The notice was part of the entire interplay between the customer and shop, and was misleading.
Consumer Protection Act 1987 20(1)

 
Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd, In the Matter of [2001] NICA 20
3 Apr 2001
CANI

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice, Media

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mills v News Group Newspapers Limited [2001] EWHC Ch 412
4 Jun 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Information, Media, Human Rights, Equity
The applicant was in a relationship with Paul McCartney, and in view of attacks on other former Beatles, she sought to restrain publication of the address of a property she had contracted to buy. The newspaper had said it would not publish unless others did, but refused to give an undertaking. The applicant obtained an injunction. Held: The freedom of the press is vital, but also a right of privacy was developing. A duty of confidence can arise in equity independently of any dealings directly between the parties, in this case where the information may be confidential in nature. The PCC code of practice could be taken into account by the court. To justify a prior restraint, the court must be satisfied that the claimant would be likely to succeed at trial. The house had not been chosen with a view to the claimant's security, and this was not a case in which an injunction should have been granted.
Human Rights Act 1998 12 - Press Complaints Commission, Code of Practice
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others Times, 12 June 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1075; [2001] 1 WLR 1983
12 Jun 2001
CACD

Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order could not be made. Second, would an order reduce or remove the threat, and could the threat of harm be achieved by some lesser order. Only then could a court come to ask whether the degree of risk which might be run outweighed the competing duty to provide an open system of justice This was a case in which it had been necessary to order a split trial, and in addition to other factors the later trial may have been prejudiced by reporting of the first, and the order was properly made.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2) - Criminal Justice Act 1988 159 - European Convention on Human Rights 6 10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Vgt Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland; ECHR 28-Jun-2001 - 24699/94; (2002) 34 EHRR 159; [2001] ECHR 412; (2002) 34 EHRR 4

 
 Clibbery v Allan and Another; FD 2-Jul-2001 - Times, 02 July 2001; Gazette, 05 July 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 819

 
 Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes; CA 18-Jul-2001 - Times, 25 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1233; [2002] EMLR 78

 
 Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd; CA 18-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; (2001) 24(9) IPD 24058,; [2001] HRLR 57; [2001] EMLR 44; [2001] 4 All ER 666; [2001] UKHRR 1242; [2002] ECC 19; [2002] RPC 5; [2001] 3 WLR 1368; [2002] ECDR 32; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1142; [2002] Ch 149; [2002] RPC 235
 
Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233; [2002] EMLR 4
18 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Jonathan Parker LJ, Mustill J
Civil Procedure Rules, Torts - Other, Media, Human Rights
The publication of articles in a newspaper describing how a "black clerk" had complained about the allegedly racist comments of two policemen was said to have caused the claimant to receive racist hate mail. Held: The court considered the type of conduct which had to be proved to bring the case within the statute. Publication of press articles is, in law, capable of amounting to harassment albeit in only very rare circumstances. Lord Phillips MR said that: "Section 7 of the 1997 Act does not purport to provide a comprehensive definition of harassment. There are many actions that foreseeably alarm or cause a person distress that could not possibly be described as harassment. It seems to me that section 7 is dealing with that element of the offence which is constituted by the effect of the conduct rather than with the types of conduct that produce that effect.
The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct that is capable of constituting harassment. "Harassment" is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable. The practice of stalking is a prime example of such conduct."
Civil Procedure Rules 24 - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Human Rights Act 1998 12(4)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Baldwin v Rusbridger and Another; QBD 23-Jul-2001 - Times, 23 July 2001

 
 Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd; HL 25-Jul-2001 - Times, 27 July 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] UKHL 42; [2001] Eu LR 741; [2001] 1 WLR 1604; [2001] EMLR 42; [2001] 3 CMLR 26
 
Regina on the Application of Anna Ford v The Press Complaints Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 683
31 Jul 2001
Admn
The Honourable Mr. Justice Sibler
Media, Information, Judicial Review, Human Rights, Administrative
The complainant had been photographed wearing a bikini, whilst on holiday by a photographer using a long lens. She had been on a quiet part of public beach. She complained to the Press Complaints Commission who rejected her complaint. The rules required press not to use such tactics when the subject was on private property, and the definition of that included a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. The commission found it to be a public place. She sought to review their decision. The commission that it exercised a public function under the Act. On judicial review, the court was not to substitute its own decision for that of the executive. The human rights law might now require a more intensive review, when considering the proportionality of any interference with the subject's rights of privacy. Nevertheless, the English courts will continue to defer to the views of bodies like the Commission even after the HRA. In this case also there had been a delay in applying for the review, and the application for leave to review was dismissed.
Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission - Human Rights Act 1998 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
HIH Casualty And General Insurance Limited and Others v The Chase Manhattan Bank and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1250; [2001] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 161
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Rix And Mr Justice Lloyd
Insurance, Media
Parties syndicating finance for a film obtained the security of an insurance which is designed to pay up to the sum insured, if the revenues generated by the film were insufficient to repay the loan finance plus associated expenses. The polices were supported by a 'truth of statement' policy, and the issue was the extent to which that applied as between the insurers and their own re-insurers.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A v B plc and Another Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 02 November 2001
10 Sep 2001
QBD
Jack J
Media, Human Rights
The applicant, a professional footballer, sought an injunction to prevent the defendant newspaper and the woman second defendant from publishing or disclosing details of a sexual relationship between them. He succeeded. There was no public interest in the disclosure of such material, and the law of confidentiality could apply to the facts of the existence of and details of sexual activity between private individuals, even in the absence of an explicit agreement to that effect. A balance had to be found between the rights of individuals, and the rights of the press of freedom of expression. In this case the likelihood was that the claimant would succeed at trial. The three requirements appeared to have been met, namely that the information had the necessary quality of confidence, it had been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and there was an unauthorised use of the information. The interlocutory injunction was granted.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Her Majesty's Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 1)
17 Sep 2001
HCJ
Lord Osborne
Scotland, Criminal Practice, Media
The defendant complained that the publicity preceding his trial for a notorious murder would prejudice his right to a fair trial, and sought an order under the 1981 Act to delay any further publicity until after the trial, partcularly where previous publicity had been inaccurate. Held: The question for the court was whether "a fair and accurate report of" the present trial "held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith" would create "a substantial risk of prejudice in the administration of justice in" these "proceedings". It would not.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ]
 
V v C [2001] EWCA Civ 1424
20 Sep 2001
CA
Brooke, Waller, Longmore LJJ
Media
Application for order that hearing to be held in private. Held: It would not be reported until after a forthcoming related criminal trial.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Shayler; CACD 28-Sep-2001 - Times, 10 October 2001; Gazette, 18 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1977; [2001] 1 WLR 2206
 
Commission v Netherlands C-254/00 C-254/00; [2001] EUECJ C-254/00
11 Oct 2001
ECJ

European, Media
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Directive 95/47/EC within the prescribed period - Use of standards for the transmission of television signals.
[ Bailii ]
 
MGN Ltd v Attard Unreported, 19 October 2001
19 Oct 2001

Connell J
Media, Human Rights
Complaint was made about the publication of photographs of the survivor of conjoined twins who was only one year old. The photographs were taken in a street in Malta but followed the earlier publication of photographs and press articles based on interviews which the child's parents gave in order to raise money for her care. Held: The photograph constituted at most a minimal breach of the right to privacy given the innocuous nature of the photographs and the fact that they would not enable the reader to make a subsequent identification of the child. The court doubted whether Article. 8 was engaged at all given the public nature of the area where they were taken.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers



 
 Al-Fagih v H H Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd; CA 1-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1634; [2001] 2 EMLR 215; [2002] EMLR 13; [2001] All ER (D) 48
 
Briffett v Director of Public Prosecutions; Bradshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 26 November 2001; [2002] EMLR 12
6 Nov 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Newman
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
A bare order restricting reporting under the section was too vague to allow a later prosecution for contempt. Crook had established that the court must specify just what restrictions are to apply.
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39(1) 39(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Mentuck [2001] 3 SCR 442; 2001 SCC 76
15 Nov 2001

McLachlin C.J. and L'Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
Media, Police
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada - Courts - Supreme Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Publication bans - Criminal proceedings - Trial judge granting one-year ban as to identity of undercover police officers and refusing ban as to operational methods used in investigating accused - Whether Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear Crown appeal from trial judge's order - Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 40(1), (3).
Criminal law - Publication bans - Appropriate scope of publication ban - Undercover police investigation - Crown seeking publication ban protecting identity of police officers and operational methods used in investigating accused - Trial judge granting one-year ban as to identity of officers and refusing ban as to operational methods - Whether trial judge erred in ordering ban.\
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Sean Sweeney, Graham Edward Camps v Macmillan Publishers Limited, Danis Rose [2001] EWHC Ch 460
22 Nov 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Lloyd
Intellectual Property, Media, European
The claimants were trustees of the estate of James Joyce, and complained at the publication of unpublished parts of the work Ulysses in a readers edition by the defendants. Published works are protected for fifty years after the author's death, but unpublished works received protection for fifty years after the work was created. A European Directive had extended the protection to 70 years. Held: The work was complex, with many amendments and an unsettled form. The defendant had done much preparatory work before publication, and that work had begun before the copyright was revived by the new regulations. Had he acquired his own copyright so that the original Joycean copyright was not revived by the new regulations. The claimants suggested that it was absurd to make a substantial distinction between the work as published by Joyce, and the unpublished texts from which that work was gathered. The regulations protected works where arrangements for publication had been made before the regulations came into effect. The term 'arrangements for publication' should be construed not too widely, and the defendant's editorial activities were not sufficient to give him protection. The defendants sought a compulsory licence under regulation 24. In this case they had given sufficient notice to be entitled to a licence. The claimants sought damages for passing off, claiming that the work was so different from Joyce's own as to be misleading. The claim was unusual but failed.
Directive, 93/98/EEC - Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/3297) 24
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 De Coster v College des bourgmestre et echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort; ECJ 29-Nov-2001 - C-17/00; [2001] EUECJ C-17/00; [2002] All ER (EC) 154; [2001] ECR I-944; [2001] ECR I-9445; ECLI:EU:C:2001:651; [2002] 1 CMLR 12
 
Attorney-General v Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002; [2001] EWHC QB 451; [2001] All ER (D) 32 (Dec)
4 Dec 2001
QBD
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division
Contempt of Court, Media
The defendant newspaper had published facts relating to the whereabouts of two youths protected by injunction against the publication of any information likely to lead to their location. The injunction was not ambiguous or unclear. 'Likely' did not mean statistical probability but a real chance that the information would put the lives at risk. Information which was not accessible to the general public was not in the public domain. To establish a contempt, the Attorney General had to establish to the criminal level of proof that the defendant knew of the injunction and its terms, that the information published was "likely to lead to the identification" of the past, present or future whereabouts of youths; and that the information was not already in the public domain.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Venables and Thompson v News Group International, Associated Newspapers Ltd, MGN Ltd; QBD 4-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 452; [2001] EMLR 255; [2001] EWHC 530 (QB); [2001] All ER (D) 32

 
 Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5); CA 5-Dec-2001 - Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1805; [2002] 2 WLR 640; [2002] QB 783; [2002] Masons CLR 35; [2002] EMLR 14; [2002] 1 All ER 652

 
 Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2); CA 19-Dec-2001 - Times, 10 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1897; [2002] 1 WLR 2450; [2002] EMLR 358; [2003] 2 All ER 872; [2002] FSR 50; [2002] CP Rep 22; [2002] EMLR 20; [2002] 1 WLR 1233; [2002] Masons CLR 3
 
Interbrew SA v Financial Times Ltd and Others Times, 04 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWHC Ch 471; [2001] EWHC 480 (Ch); [2002] 1 Lloyds Rep 542
19 Dec 2001
ChD
Justice Lightman
Media, Human Rights
The claimant was involved in takeover proceedings. Certain confidential documents were taken, doctored, and released to and published by the defendants who now resisted orders for disclosure of the source. Held: The court must balance the right of freedom of expression, and the private rights of the claimants. The court should start from an assumption that it would be wrong to order disclosure of the source of a press story, The claimants could succeed only if the disclosure was so important as to override the public interest in protecting journalistic sources in order to ensure free communication of information to and through the press. The damage caused was serious, a criminal offence had been involved, and the claimant had a legitimate need to prevent further such disclosures. The source was to be revealed.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.