The claimant internet provider claimed damages against the defendant who it said had written to its clients making false assertions about the claimant. An earlier defamation claim had been struck out, but the claimant now alleged interference with its business by unlawful means.
Held: While the allegations were novel the amendments were allowed.
Eady J
[2008] EWHC 3129 (QB)
Bailii
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (2008/1277, Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (2006/114/EC), Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd CA 20-Jun-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings . .
Cited – Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc ChD 1998
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Defamation, Torts – Other
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.278800