Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2001

A web site operator who declined responsibility for the moderation of a chat room on the site, but did take steps to remove a poster making defamatory remarks, could not rely upon the Act to resist disclosure of the identity of the author. The Act was intended to protect those who themselves accepted responsibility. In any event the interests of justice would have required the name to be revealed, overriding any obligations under the Data Protection Act.
Owen J
Times 15-Mar-2001, Gazette 11-May-2001, [2001] EWHC 706 (QB), [2001] EMLR 29
Contempt of Court Act 1981
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromTotalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
CitedThe Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.89928