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: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 41 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ex parte HTV Cymru (Wales) Ltd [2002] EMLR 11
2002
Aikens J
Media
The court granted an injunction to restrain the media from interviewing witnesses during the course of a criminal trial.
1 Citers
WB v H Bauer Publishing Ltd [2002] EMLR 145
2002
Eady J
Intellectual Property, Media
1 Citers
Canal Satelite Digital SL v Adminstracion General del Estado, and Distribuidora de Television Digital SA (DTS) Times, 28 January 2002; C-390/99; [2002] EUECJ C-390/99
22 Jan 2002
ECJ
Media, European
The complainant company manufactured lawful TV decoders. It complained that Spain applied a requirement for prior approval before they could be used in Spain. They complained that the system operated to restrict the free movement of goods within the Community. Held: The scheme did infringe the right of free movement of goods, but the court must test as to its proportionality vis a vis the objective sought to be obtained. It must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria, and not duplicate testing procedures in the home state. It would be unlawful if it imposed such an impediment as to restrict the flow of goods.
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Supremo - Spain. Articles 30 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 49 EC) - National legislation requiring operators of conditional-access television services to register in a national register created for that purpose, indicating the characteristics of the technical equipment they use, and subsequently to obtain administrative certification thereof - Meaning of "technical regulation"
Council Directive 95/47/EC - Council Directive 83/189/EEC
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Sony Computer Entertainment v Paul Owen [2002] EMLR 34; [2002] EWHC 45 (Ch)
23 Jan 2002
ChD
Jacob J
Media, Intellectual Property, Damages
Claim for infringement - sale of chip designed to bypass country code control on the claimant's gaming machines. Held: An infringement of copyright committed in breach of an injunction restraining such infringement can found an award of additional damages.
In distinguishing WB, Jacob J said: "That seems to me to be a very different case because there is no provision authorising damages for contempt itself and no provision in the general law for additional damages for the wrongs alleged [Bauer's case was a case of breach of confidence]. Here there is. Section 97 requires the Court to have regard to all the circumstances. Those circumstances, to my mind, plainly can include the circumstance that the sales were done in breach of a Court Order. They make the act flagrant. They make the act fairly describable as "scandalous". In this regard, copyright is different from many other rights precisely because there is the statutory right to additional damages if the Court, in all the circumstances, thinks it right to grant them. I do, in this case, in principle, although I am told that the evidence will establish mitigating circumstances. "
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Allan v Clibbery (1) Times, 05 February 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 45; [2002] Fam 261; [2002] 1 FLR 565; [2002] UKHRR 697
30 Jan 2002
CA
Butler-Sloss P FD LJ, Lord Justice Thorpe, and, Lord Justice Keene
Family, Media, Information, Human Rights
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed by the media. Held: The description of the law at first instance was too wide in stating that family proceedings could not, with the exception of children cases, be heard in private. It does not follow alone from the fact that a hearing was in private that there was a ban on reporting it. Family proceedings are not different from other civil proceedings, save in recognised classes of cases, and situations which manifestly required permanent confidentiality. There is no one approach to the balance between the right to family life in article 8 and freedom of expression in article 10 of the Convention.
Whether family proceedings in chambers are protected from publication depends upon whether they come within the 1960 Act or whether the administration of justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced by publication.
There is an implied obligation upon a party to whom documents are disclosed in proceedings for ancillary relief not to disseminate them, or copies of them, to third parties without the leave of the court
Family Law Act 1996 36 - Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (1991 No 1247 (L20)) 3.9(1 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 12
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Theakston v MGN Ltd [2002] EWHC 137 (QB); [2002] EMLR 22; [2002] EMLR 398
14 Feb 2002
QBD
Ouseley J
Media, Human Rights
The claimant, a celebrity sought to restrain publication by the defendant of information about his sex life, consisting of pictures of him in a brothel. The court considered the test for the grant of an injunction to restrain publication under the 1998 Act. Held: The court could not see how the approach required by section 12(3) can be other than that the claimant must show that it is more probable than not that he will succeed in obtaining an injunction at trial. It could not envisage, as a matter of ordinary English, an injunction which is likely to be granted but more probably than not will be refused. Ouseley J said: "If Parliament had intended the relevant test to be whether the claimant had a real prospect of success, it would have used that familiar legal phrase. I consider that it intended to impose the discernibly more rigorous requirement which it did in this particular context of freedom of expression." and "Sexual relations within marriage at home would be at one end of the range or matrix of circumstances to be protected from most forms of disclosure; a one night stand with a recent acquaintance in a hotel bedroom might very well be protected from press publicity. A transitory engagement in a brothel is yet further away".
The court refused an injunction restraining publication of a verbal depiction of the claimant's activities in a brothel, but granted an injunction restraining the publication of the photographs.
Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
H (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited Times, 19 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 195
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Health, Information, Human Rights, Media, Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court
The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his private patients for notification. He had obtained an order under the rules to protect his identity within the proceedings. Held: The order against the newspaper would better have been obtained as part of the first action, but the two could be consolidated. The order had allowed the authority to be named, but restricted the newspaper publishing anything which might lead directly or indirectly to his identification. Both parties challenged parts of the order. The order preventing the naming of the Health Authority was intended only to protect the identity of the worker, and was properly made. There was a balancing exercise to be had, and also there was a need to respect the privacy of those who had been treated by H. The Health authority also had interests which it had a duty to protect. The court had power to protect its identity to avoid a situation which would seriously interfere with its statutory duties. The consequence of identifying the authority would include also the inevitable discovery of the identity of H. N should not be identified. H must hand over such records of his private patients as was necessary to allow a look-back exercise, and identify any who might have been at risk.
Data Protection Act 1988 - Civil Procedure Rules 39.2.(2) - Human Rights Act 1998 Sch1 Art 10
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Malcolm v University of Oxford Chancellor, Masters and Scholars [2002] EWCA Civ 331
1 Mar 2002
CA
Contract, Media
[ Bailii ]
Financial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA Times, 21 March 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 274; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 229; [2002] EMLR 446
8 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights
The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant. Held: The Ashworth Hospital case seemed to have widened the meaning of 'necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime' which was the test under section 10 for the disclosure against a newspaper. The human rights of freedom of the press also must be considered. The respondents sought to make a claim for breach of confidence, and accordingly the tests under section 10 was satisfied. The source's evidently maleficent purpose was critical.
Sedley LJ acknowledged the need to read section 10 of the 1981 Act compatibly with the Convention: "The purpose of s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is to limit to the necessary minimum any requirement upon journalists to reveal their sources. It has now to be read and applied by our courts, so far as possible, compatibly with the Convention rights: Human Rights Act 1998, s.3(1). For reasons touched on earlier in this judgment, there should be no difficulty about this; but that is not to say that the Convention can simply be treated as background, for it and its jurisprudence may both amplify and modify the hitherto accepted meaning and effect of s.10. For present purposes the Convention right which is in play is the qualified right spelt out in art. 10."
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
A v B plc and Another (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd); CA 11-Mar-2002 - Times, 13 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] 3 WLR 542; [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2003] QB 195; [2002] 1 FLR 1021; [2002] UKHRR 457; (2002) 12 BHRC 466; [2002] HRLR 25; [2002] 2 FCR 158; [2002] 2 All ER 545; [2002] Fam Law 415; [2002] EMLR 21
Regina (Quintavalle, Prolife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation; CA 14-Mar-2002 - Times, 19 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 297; [2002] 3 WLR 1080; [2002] 2 All ER 756
Regina (Persey and Others) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Times, 28 March 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin); [2003] QB 794; [2002] 3 WLR 704
15 Mar 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Human Rights, Administrative, Agriculture, Information, Judicial Review, Media
The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a failure to hold the enquiry in public infringed the applicant's human rights. Held: The distinction between freedom of expression, and of access to information was central. Art 10 created no obligation to provide a public forum for discussion of issues. On the question of whether there is a presumption that an inquiry would be held in public (Wagstaff), this must be approached on a case by case basis with no presumption either way.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Rusbridger and Another v Attorney General [2002] EWCA Civ 397
20 Mar 2002
CA
Constitutional, Human Rights, Media
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act. Held: The defendant had made no decision (other than not to prosecute) and there was no decision to challenge. Whilst the other applications should not proceed, the court considered that the possible incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the Human Rights Act was a proper matter of public interest and might be pursued.
Treason and Felony Act 1848 3 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Shayler; HL 21-Mar-2002 - Times, 22 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] UKHL 11; [2003] 1 AC 247; [2002] 2 WLR 754; [2002] ACD 58; [2002] HRLR 33; [2002] 2 All ER 477; [2002] UKHRR 603
Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 602 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 2929
22 Mar 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Elias
Prisons, Media, Human Rights
The applicant, a prisoner challenged the uniform ban on contact by prisoners with the media by telephone, arguing that it infringed his Article 10 rights. Held: Restricting telephone contact with the media was not part of imprisonment. A democratic society need not seek to prevent prisoners from expressing their views directly to the media about grievances or concerns they had about issues affecting them. The policy insofar as it was imposed universally was unlawful.
Prison Service Order 4400 6.10 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Perrin [2002] EWCA Crim 747
22 Mar 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Potter, And Mr Justice Harrison
Crime, Human Rights, Media
The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the web-site from within the UK. The defendant appealed saying that he had not acted within the UK, and had not committed the offence, and that the allegation was bad as imprecise, and that there had been no publication within the jurisdiction. Held: Whilst the number of people who might be corrupted had to be more than negligible, no licence to publish was obtained because many readers or viewers would not be corrupted. The availability of the material as a preview page was relevant when considering who might see the article, and may be corrupted. That a viewer may already be corrupted is not to say that the material provided may not further corrupt him. One officer seeing the material was sufficient to constitute publication. The argument as to imprecision required additional words to be imported into the convention. The internet is a worldwide system, and applying the laws of each country in which a page may be read could lead to the most restrictive laws being universally applied. The restriction on expression did engage the defendants rights, but was necessary in a free and democratic society. It was not necessary for a prosecutor to show where the major steps in publication took place to found jurisdiction. See also CL vol 13 issue 2 for comment)
Obscene Publications Act 1959 2(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd Times, 29 March 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 499 (QB); [2003] QB 633
27 Mar 2002
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Morland
Media, Information, Human Rights
The applicant sought damages for the defendant having infringed her privacy in several ways, including under the 1998 Act. The defendant argued that she had invited publicity and had misled the public as to her drug problem. A photograch had been taken as she left a drug rehabilitation group meeting. Held: The fact that she was receiving treatment for her addiction was sensitive personal information under the Data Protection Act, and had the mark and badge of confidentiality. The three requirements in the first data protection principle under section 4 of the 1998 Act were cumulative. Compensation was governed by section 13, and "damage" in sections 13(1) and 13(2)(a) meant special or financial damages not distress in the shape of injury to feelings. The defendant had shown a proper public interest in disclosing her addiction, but not the nature and occasion of her treatment.
Data Protection Act 1998 4 13 Sch 3 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 10.2
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Union Music Ltd and Another v Watson [2002] EWCA Civ 680
29 Apr 2002
CA
Company, Media
[ Bailii ]
Bonnick v Morris, The Gleaner Company Ltd and Allen [2002] UKPC 31; [2003] 1 AC 300; [2002] 3 WLR 820; 12 BHRC 558; [2002] EMLR 37; [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 403; (2002) 12 BHRC 558; [2002] All ER (D) 92; (2003) 4 CHRLD 35
17 Jun 2002
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote and Mr Justice Tipping
Defamation, Commonwealth, Media
(Jamaica) The appellant sought damages from the respondent journalists in defamation. They had claimed qualified privilege. The words alleged to be defamatory were ambiguous. Held: The publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege. The court should give the article the natural and ordinary meaning which would be attributed by an intelligent reader seeing it once. He could read between the lines but may not be unduly suspicious.
An appellate court should not disturb the judge's finding without real justification. That did not apply here.
As to privilege, qualified privilege need not be lost because of unanticipated ambiguity. The defamatory imputation was a matter of implication, about which different views could apply. Responsible journalism was the point at which a fair balance was held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputations of individuals. Nevertheless ambiguity can be a screen behind which a journalist could be "willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike". It is a matter for the words in each case. In this case the ambiguity was not so patent. There was, or perhaps should be, a deterrent element in the amount of damages in defamation cases.
Lord Nicholls discussed the single meaning rule in defamation: "The 'single meaning' rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear: see the familiar exposition by Diplock LJ in Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, 171-172. The law attributes to the words only one meaning, although different readers are likely to read the words in different senses. In that respect the rule is artificial. Nevertheless, given the ambiguity of language, the rule does represent a fair and workable method for deciding whether the words under consideration should be treated as defamatory. To determine liability by reference to the meaning an ordinary reasonable reader would give the words is unexceptionable."
For the purposes of determining whether, in the context of a defamation action, a journalist had acted responsibly, it was permissible to take account of the meaning which a journalist thought an article had even though that is different from the meaning which the article had to the ordinary reasonable reader. "A journalist should not be penalised for making a wrong decision on a question of meaning on which different people might reasonably take different views." In that case "the defamatory meaning of the words used was not so glaringly obvious that any responsible journalist would be bound to realise this was how the words would be understood by ordinary, reasonable readers."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited; HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 01 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 29; [2002] 1 WLR 2033; 12 BHRC 443; [2003] FSR 17; [2002] CPLR 712; [2002] UKHRR 1263; [2002] EMLR 36; (2002) 67 BMLR 175; [2002] HRLR 41; [2002] 4 All ER 193
Bonnier Media Limited v Greg Lloyd Smith and Kestrel Trading Corporation Times, 10 July 2002
1 Jul 2002
SCS
Lord Drummond Young
Scotland, Media, Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction
The defenders registered internet domain names. The claimants alleged an intended infringement of their trade marks, saying the defenders had a history of opening sites intended to deceive. The defenders who were resident in Greece said that the 1982 Act could not be used for a threatened delict, but only for a completed one. Held: The procedure was available for a threatened delict. The difference between one threatened and one complete need not be substantial. Jurisdiction over the defendant was available where it could be seen that the web-site would be directed at the pursuers business. That was the case here.
Trade Marks Act 1994 - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 1
1 Cites
[ ScotC ]
McManus and others v Beckham Times, 11 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 939; [2002] 1 WLR 2982; [2002] 4 All ER 497
4 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Laws
Defamation, Media, Damages
The claimant sought damages from the defendant who was a pop star, and had vociferously, publicly, and wrongly accused the claimant of selling pictures with fake autographs of her husband. The defendant obtained an order striking out the claim on the ground that the defendant was not responsible for repetitions of the slander by others. Held: It was not possible to dispose of the republication issue at the interlocutory stage. Much would depend on the findings of the jury, in the light of appropriate directions. Whether the defendant was so responsible was a matter eventually for a jury to decide. She might be found liable if her own fame was such that she expected or should reasonably expect anything extraordinary which she said in public, to be reported. The striking out was set aside. It would be a question of fact for each case. "The reality is that the court has to decide whether, on the facts before it, it is just to hold [the defendant] responsible for the loss in question".
Waller LJ said: "What the law is trying to achieve in this area is a just and reasonable result by reference to the position of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant. If a defendant is actually aware (1) that what she says or does is likely to be reported, and (2) that if she slanders someone that slander is likely to be repeated in whole or in part, there is no injustice in her being held responsible for the damage that the slander causes via that publication. I would suggest further that if a jury were to conclude that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant should have appreciated that there was a significant risk that what she said would be repeated in whole or in part in the press and that that would increase the damage caused by the slander, it is not unjust that the defendant should be liable for it. Thus I would suggest a direction along the above lines rather than by reference to 'foreseeability'."
Laws LJ said: "It will not however in my judgment be enough to show that D's slander is a cause of X's further publication: for such a cause might exist although D could have no reason to know of it; and then to hold D responsible would not be just. This is why the old formulae, "natural and probable cause," is inapt even as a figurative description of the relationship that needs to be shown between D's slander and the further publication D is to be held liable for the latter. It must rather be demonstrated that D foresaw that further publication would probably take place, or that D (or a reasonable person in D's position) should have so foreseen and that in consequence increased damage to C 'would ensue'.
Such an approach, I hope, may go some modest distance to demythologise the law of defamation. I make it clear that I intend what I had said to be in conformity with Waller LJ's suggestion at the end of his judgment as to how a jury might be directed, though with difference to him I think that any avoidance of the term "foreseeability" is commended by the need for clarity rather than adherence to principle, for in principle the approach he proposes, and for what its worth my own reasoning, require that the damage in question flowing from X's act be foreseen or foreseeable by D or the reasonable person in D's position"
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited Unreported, 5 July 2002
5 Jul 2002
Lloyd J
Media, Information
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further publication by the second defendants of confidential papers taken from them by the first defendant on her dismissal. Held: An interlocutory injunction was granted prohibiting the defendants until trial from publishing, disclosing or using information defined as confidential information in a confidential schedule.
1 Citers
NTL Group Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v S Constabulary; Admn 22-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1585 (Admin); [2003] QB 131; [2002] 3 WLR 1173
Gaetan Seneque and Jacques David v The Director of Public Prosecutions; PC 24-Jul-2002 - Times, 23 August 2002; [2002] UKPC 42
Carlton Communications Plc, Granada Media Plc v The Football League [2002] EWHC 1650 (Comm)
1 Aug 2002
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Langley
Contract, Media, Company
The applicants sought a declaration that they had not provided guarantees to support a contract between a joint venture company owned by them, OnDigital, and the respondent to screen football matches. The company had become insolvent. Held: The applicants had indicated in the initial bid document that they would guarantee the bid, but that guarantee had not been incorporated into the later documents. OnDigital was not able to bind the claimants. The bid had been renegotiated and reformulated before being signed. A guarantee had to be in writing, and the initial statement had been superceded. Subject to contract negotiations remain in negotiation until a formal contract is concluded. A company is not the agent of its shareholders. A declaration that the claimants had not guaranteed the contract was granted.
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Jockey Club v Buffham [2003] QB 462; Times, 04 October 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1866 (QB)
13 Sep 2002
QBD
Gray J
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court, Media, Intellectual Property
A court had issued a final order with an injunction against the respondent against revealing matters becoming known to him during his employment by the claimant. The BBC sought a variation to allow it to broadcast material based upon that documents held by the defendant. Held: A final order was not binding against third parties. Once the proceedings had concluded, and a final order made, those proceedings could not be prejudiced, and the law of contempt no longer applied. The BBC was not bound by the injunction.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
BG and Others v HMTQ 2002 BCSC 1417; 221 DLR (4th) 751; [2002] CarswellBC 2395; [2002] BCJ No 2246 (QL); [2002] BCTC 1417
7 Oct 2002
Wong J
Media, Litigation Practice
Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court prohibited, until the conclusion of the proceedings, identification of school staff accused of abusing boys in an action brought by them in later life against the school. Held: The protection of innocent people was a social value of superordinate importance which, were they to suffer irreparable harm to their reputation, would justify overriding the general principle of open justice; that, accused of being paedophiles, the staff had been put in the category of persons most condemned and reviled by society; and that, were they to be publicly identified, they would suffer irreparable harm before they had had any opportunity to rebut the accusations.
1 Citers
[ Canlii ]
M6 v Commission T-300/00 [2002] EUECJ T-300/00
8 Oct 2002
ECJ
Media, Commercial
(Competition) - Decision granting exemption - Television rights - Eurovision system - Article 81(1) and (3) EC - Manifest error of assessment
[ Bailii ]
M6 v Commission T-216/00 [2002] EUECJ T-216/00
8 Oct 2002
ECJ
Commercial, Media
(Competition) - Decision granting exemption - Television rights - Eurovision system - Article 81(1) and (3) EC - Manifest error of assessment
[ Bailii ]
M6 v Commission T-299/00 [2002] EUECJ T-299/00
8 Oct 2002
ECJ
Media, Commercial
(Competition) - Decision granting exemption - Television rights - Eurovision system - Article 81(1) and (3) EC - Manifest error of assessment
[ Bailii ]
Frisbee v Campbell [2002] EWCA Civ 1374; [2003] ICR 141
14 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Phillips MR
Media, Employment, Intellectual Property, Human Rights
The claimant sought an account against her former employee for the disclosures made by her of their activities. The respondent had signed a confidentiality agreement. The respondent counterclaimed for assault. She now appealed from dismissal of her appeal against the summary judgment entered against her, arguing that the judge was wrong to dismiss her case as unarguable, since the contract was repudiated by the claimant's own violent and other misconduct. The claimant argued that a confidentiality clause within an employment context survived any repudiation, and no public policy applied to justify the disclosure. Held: Whilst the defendant might not expect to succeed, it could not be said that her case was unarguable and the case was not appropriate for summary judgement. The existence of the Press Code engaged the defendants rights of free expression. Those rights were not absolute, and were to be seen with a balance including also the claimant's privacy rights. Whilst the defendant was not to be encouraged to persist, the case was not so unarguable as to be properly dismissed in a summary procedure: "We consider that it is arguable that a duty of confidentiality that has been expressly assumed under contract carries more weight, when balanced against the right of freedom of expression, that a duty of confidence than is not buttressed by express agreement"
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers plc Times, 16 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1373; [2003] 2 WLR 80; [2003] QB 633; [2003] 1 All ER 224; [2003] EMLR 39
14 Oct 2002
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Chadwick LJ, Keene Lj
Information, Media, Human Rights
The newspaper appealed against a finding that it had infringed the claimant's privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic. Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence of qualified privilege in defamation is not to be equated with the rules in privacy cases. The photograph was an essential part of demonstrating the deceit of the claimant. Given the story, the addition of the photograph was not particularly significant. If the publication was in the public interest, the journalist had to have some latitude. The balance between the Convention created rights of privacy and the freedom of the press is still being developed. The 1998 Act exemption was given to the data, once established, and therefore applied at all stages of its use. "In interpreting the Act it is appropriate to look to the Directive for assistance. The Act should, if possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Directive. Furthermore, because the Act has, in large measure, adopted the wording of the Directive, it is not appropriate to look for the precision in the use of language that is usually to be expected from the parliamentary draftsman. A purposive approach to making sense of the provisions is called for." and "The development of the law of confidentiality since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force has seen information described as 'confidential' not where it has been confided by one person to another, but where it relates to an aspect of an individual's private life which he does not choose to make public. We consider that the unjustifiable publication of such information would better be described as breach of privacy rather than breach of confidence."
Data Protection Act 1998 32 - European Convention on Human Rights - Directive 95/46/EC
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Ackroyd v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 2115 (QB)
18 Oct 2002
Gray J
Media
The medical records of a patient at the hospital had been provided by an employee to a journalist who then provided a story to the Mirror. An order had been made for the Mirror to disclose the source. An application was now made against the journalist himself.
1 Citers
Linhart v Hans Biffl C-99/01; [2002] EUECJ C-99/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ
J-P. Puissochet, P
European, Media
ECJ Approximation of laws - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) - Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products - Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising - National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising.
[ Bailii ]
Demuth v Switzerland 38743/97; [2002] ECHR 704
5 Nov 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Media
The court considered the licensing system for television broadcasts in Switzerland and concluded that it was capable of contributing to the quality and balance of programmes through the powers conferred on the government. It was therefore consistent with the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10. The Court emphasised the margin of appreciation afforded to domestic authorities in this context, and stated that the degree of scrutiny of the executive's decision may be less severe where what is concerned is commercial speech.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Hunt, Regina (on the Applicaton of) v Independent Television Commission and Another [2002] EWHC 2296 (Admin)
6 Nov 2002
Admn
Media
Complaint had been made as to the applicant's report of the 'cash for questions' affair. The journalist complained that his appeal against the respondent's decision had not satisfied their responsibilities under the Act.
Broadcasting Act l990 6(3)(b)
[ Bailii ]
K v Cheshire Burgess Chief Constable [2002] EWCA Civ 1711
6 Nov 2002
CA
Employment, Media
Application of media reporting restrictions to Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing.
[ Bailii ]
A and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others Times, 11 December 2002
27 Nov 2002
FD
Sumner J
Family, Children, Media, Costs
Applications had been made by fathers for specific issue orders that their children be immunised. The respondents sought orders to allow the cases to be either heard in open court or for other reporting restrictions to be lifted. As a result of their application, the time allocated for the substantive hearings had been severely compromised, and costs were sought against them. Held: A timely application by the media should not result in a costs order, but here the applications had been late, and had considerably disrupted the hearing. Even if the application was arguable, as it was here, it was not for the media to argue that the individuals involved should themselves have taken any steps. The matter of whether reporting should be allowed and on what terms was for the court alone. An application which was late might be viewed as improper for that very reason, if disruption resulted. Here, however, a pre-trial order might have raised expectations that reporting would be allowed, and a costs order was not appropriate.
Peakviewing (Interactive) Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; CA 28-Nov-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1864
Her Majesty's Attorney General v Punch Limited and another [2003] 1 All ER 289; [2003] HRLR 14; [2003] EMLR 7; Times, 13 December 2002; [2002] UKHL 50; [2002] UKHL 43; [2003] 2 WLR 49; [2003] 1 AC 1046
12 Dec 2002
HL
Lord Hope of Craighead
Contempt of Court, Media
A former MI5 agent, Mr Shayler, was to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and an injunction against publication was granted. The respondent published further works by Mr Shayler, and now appealed a finding that it had acted in contempt of court. Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the interlocutory injunction was not merely to protect secret information, but was more to hold the position until a court had properly decided that issue. Accordingly a publication contrary to the injunction interfered with the administration of justice and was a contempt. It pre-empted the decision which a court might later make. It remained a contempt even if the information did not threaten security.
Lord Hope of Craighead spoke of the liability of a third party for contempt: "it has . . to be shown there was an intention on his part to interfere with or impede the administration of justice. This is an essential ingredient, and it has to be established to the criminal standard of proof."
Lord Nicholls said: "Contempt of court is the established, if unfortunate, name given to the species of wrongful conduct which consists of interference with the administration of justice. It is an essential adjunct of the rule of law.
Interference with the administration of justice can take many forms. In civil proceedings one obvious form is a wilful failure by a party to the proceedings to comply with a court order made against him. By such a breach a party may frustrate, to greater or lesser extent, the purpose the court sought to achieve in making the order against him . .
The form of contempt asserted by the Attorney General in the present case is different, although closely related. Sometimes the purpose a court seeks to achieve in making an order against a party to proceedings may be deliberately impeded or prejudiced by the conduct of a third party. This may take more than one form. The third party may be assisting, that is, aiding and abetting, a breach of the order by the person against whom the order was made. Then he is an accessory to the breach of the order . .
Aiding and abetting a breach of the order by the person specifically restrained by the order is not always an essential ingredient of 'third party' contempt. The purpose of a court in making an order may be deliberately frustrated by a third party even though he is acting independently of the party against whom the order was made. An interlocutory order for the non-disclosure of information is the paradigm example of the type of order where this principle is in point. The Spycatcher litigation is the best known recent instance of this. It is a contempt of court by a third party, with the intention of impeding or prejudicing the administration of justice by the court in an action between two other parties, himself to do the acts which the injunction restrains the defendant in that action from committing if the acts done have some significant and adverse affect on the administration of justice in that action: see Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd . . and, for the latter part, Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1997] 1 WLR 927, 936. Lord Phillips MR neatly identified the rationale of this form of contempt, at [2001] QB 1028, 1055, paragraph 87: "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
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]