Search for: "State v. Eady"
Results 201 - 220
of 285
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2011, 5:39 am
Eady J had earlier said that “it is not for the state or for the media to expose sexual conduct which does not involve any significant breach of the criminal law… Where the law is not breached… the private conduct of adults is essentially no-one else’s business“. [read post]
17 May 2011, 6:00 am
The decision of Mr Justice Eady CTB v News Group Newspapers and Imogen Thomas [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB) has been widely discussed in the media (and was the subject of a case comment on this blog). [read post]
17 May 2011, 3:27 am
The decision in CTB v News Group Newspapers [2011] contains a robust judicial response to that criticism. [read post]
16 May 2011, 11:52 am
” In addressing this issue, Eady J referred to Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, where the House of Lords had drawn a distinction between state secrets and confidential information relating to an individual’s private life. [read post]
10 May 2011, 8:53 am
In the UK High Court, Mr Justice Eady concluded that the articles and images constituted a breach of Mr Mosley’s right to privacy: Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) (24 July 2008). [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:31 am
Next Week in the Courts On Monday 9 May 2011 Mr Justice Eady will deal with the case of IWL v FYM - we have no further details. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 10:40 pm
I will begin by summarising the present state of that law. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 5:18 pm
I will begin by summarising the present state of that law. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 4:23 am
On Wednesday 20 April 2011, Mr Justice Eady handed down judgment in OPQ v BJM ([2011] EWHC 1059 (QB)). [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm
The OPQ case provides one possible “way out” of this unsatisfactory state of affairs. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 5:04 pm
The public is, as usual, left in a state of misinformed confusion. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 5:12 pm
The OPQ case provides one possible “way out” of this unsatisfactory state of affairs. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 5:05 pm
In the interest of balance it is worth stating that the Court of Appeal judgment in EKT v News Group Newspapers Ltd on Tuesday ([2011] EWCA Civ 439) is of some importance. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:34 pm
This reflects the current law as stated in Chase v News Group Newspapers ([2002] EWCA Civ 1772). [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
(The claimant had relied on the requirements in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167 at [19]). [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm
As Eady J said Sunderland Housing Group v Baines ([2006] EWHC 2359 (QB) ) “It seems to me at least right for a defendant who seeks to resist an injunction against publication of defamatory words to identify the defamatory meaning or meanings which he intends to justify and also to state in a witness statement verified by a statement of truth that he believes in the truth of the words in that meaning or those meanings. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm
Following the judgment of Mr Justice Eady in 2005, swift legislative changes were put in place in the US to halt “libel tourism”, initially at a State level and then, in October last year, at a Federal level. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm
In the recent case of G.D. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
In Metropolitan International Schools v Designtechnica [2009] EWHC 1765 (QB) at [35] Eady J commented that it was “surprising how little authority there is within this jurisdiction applying the common law of publication or its modern statutory refinements to internet communications”, and the same is the case in Australia[5]. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 4:07 pm
Even when modernizing the law of comment (WIC Radio & Mair v Simpson [2008] 2 SCR 420) and creating a new “public interest responsible communication” defence (Grant v Torstar Corp [2009] SCC 61) the court failed to take the step of importing Charter analysis or standards into the common law[12] As to the English solution of Reynolds, Eady J comments sadly that the Reynolds defence “seems hardly ever to be used in litigation. [read post]
