Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. The defendants now sought the transfer of the case to the Queens Bench Division.
Held: There is concurrent jurisdiction between the two divisions for issuing a privacy claim. The creation of the Media and Communications List was not under the CPR: it is a means by which work that is already within the Queen’s Bench Division is allocated for its proper performance. The creation of the M and CL has no direct extra-divisional effect.’ The application was refused. It had been made in part on mistaken assumptions, and: ‘There is no basis for concluding that the Queen’s Bench Division M and CL is the appropriate, or the more appropriate, venue for this claim. Both the Business List (ChD) and the Queen’s Bench M and CL are appropriate. There are no good reasons to transfer the claim and disturb the legitimate choice made by the claimants at the point the claim was issued.’
Marsh CM
[2018] EWHC 1261 (Ch)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981, Civil Procedure Rules 30
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – NATL Amusements (UK) Ltd and Others v White City (Shepherds Bush) Ltd Partnership and Another TCC 16-Oct-2009
Application for transfer of claim from QBD to TCC. Akenhead J considered an application to transfer a claim from the Chancery Division to the Technology and Construction Court. After reviewing the authorities, he said: ‘It is probably unnecessary to . .
Cited – Appleby Global Group Llc v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another ChD 26-Jan-2018
Claim by international firm of lawyers for breach of confidence against publishers who had received and published that information. The court now considered which division of the High Court should hear the claim.
Held: Rose J considered the . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 17-Jan-2013
The claimant sought an order to restrain the defendant from publishing embarrassing photographs taken at a private party. He had taken an assignment of the copyright from the photographer.
Held: The court considered whether the extent to which . .
Cited – Gulati and Others v MGN Limited ChD 21-May-2015
The claimants each claimed that their mobile phones had been hacked by or on behalf of the defendant newspaper group. The claims had now in substance been admitted, and the court set out to assess the damages (and aggravated damages) to be paid.
Cited – Appleby Global Group Llc v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another ChD 26-Jan-2018
Claim by international firm of lawyers for breach of confidence against publishers who had received and published that information. The court now considered which division of the High Court should hear the claim.
Held: Rose J considered the . .
Cited – CRE v Justis Publishing Ltd 20-Mar-2017
The defendant company published case law. The claimant’s case had been anonymised, but the defendant published a version of the judgment from which it was possible to identify him (or her). An order had been made to transfer the case to the County . .
Cited – Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 22-Feb-2018
The claimants said that a filming of their eviction from property was an invasion of their privacy.
Held: The Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Intellectual Property, Information, Torts – Other, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.616902