Search for: "Super Privacy, LTD"
Results 1 - 20
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2011, 5:30 pm
No more super-injunctions are being granted by the Courts in privacy cases. [read post]
12 May 2011, 5:54 am
Super injunctions just for the rich and powerful? [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 5:05 pm
But its slightly less controversial cousin, the privacy injunction – still pretty super for the claimant who obtains it – has been given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by the Court of Appeal this week. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 5:04 pm
But close observers, such as the RPC blog, note that there seems to have been a “sea change” and a decline in privacy injunction applications. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 5:21 pm
These have been thrown into sharp relief by the controversy over the use of “super injunctions” – which provide strong privacy protection but prevent public scrutiny of the decision making process. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 10:27 am
Only one injunction contained a “super-injunction” provisions. [read post]
11 Jun 2011, 5:39 pm
Chief amongst the privacy bashers are the Sun and the Daily Mail with their headlines wailing against the use of so-called ‘super-injunctions’. [read post]
18 May 2011, 10:55 pm
M, S, an NHS PCT and Times Newspapers Ltd. [2011] EQHC 1197 (COP) – read judgment. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:53 pm
The director of editorial legal services at Guardian News & Media, Gillian Phillips, has received three anonymised privacy injunctions between 1 January and 31 March 2011 but no “super” injunctions. [read post]
3 May 2012, 5:19 pm
Privacy injunctions Richard Spearman QC, 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, looked at the ‘rise and fall of super-injunctions‘ – with emphasis on the latter. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 12:23 am
Super. 54 (App. [read post]
3 Oct 2020, 10:10 am
Super. [read post]
3 Oct 2020, 10:10 am
Super. [read post]
31 May 2011, 12:19 am
CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB) (23 May 2011) : High Court refuse to vary Imogen Thomas privacy injunction despite widespread speculation of identity in social media. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 4:42 am
In relation to “reasonable expectation of privacy” the Judge observed “the home address of an individual is information the disclosure and use of which that individual has a right to control in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention (see Green Corns Ltd v Claverley Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 958 (QB) at paragraphs 53 and 56). [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 7:12 am
The publication is an invasion of privacy and hurtful for the claimant, but is not as egregious as it would otherwise be. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 4:19 pm
The purpose was to provide “bright lines” between what is permissible and what is not; in circumstances where a so-called “super injunction” would be regarded as too draconian, but nonetheless a claimant’s Article 8 rights need to be protected. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 5:30 am
http://t.co/IsirVwHNjY -> UK Privacy Injunction Statistics: Last gasp of the super-injunction http://t.co/MEtve0GP9H -> Who is Liable: App Stores or App Developers? [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 10:55 pm
To that end, privacy injunctions can only be obtained in very limited cases, although even those cases, particularly so-called ‘super’ injunctions are, often controversial. [read post]
24 May 2011, 5:28 am
MGN Ltd and Associated Newspapers also intervened in support of that application. [read post]
