Mcvicar v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 May 2002

It was not inconsistent with article 6 to expect both claimants and defendants in defamation proceedings to act in person.
46311/99, [2002] ECHR 431, (2002) 35 EHRR 22, [2002] ECHR 436
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Citing:
See alsoChristie v Angus Wilson John McVicar, Alexside Limited CA 13-Jan-1999
The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs.
Held: There was no . .

Cited by:
Appealed toChristie v Angus Wilson John McVicar, Alexside Limited CA 13-Jan-1999
The second defendant appealed an order that he pay the costs of the claimant in his successful defamation action. The action had been decided by a jury rejecting the assertion that the claimant an athlete had used drugs.
Held: There was no . .
CitedKing v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
CitedCampbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant sought to challenge the level of costs sought by the claimant after she had succeeded in her appeal to the House. Though a relatively small sum had been awarded, the costs and success fee were very substantial. The newspaper claimed . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.172177