Search for: "MGN"
Results 221 - 240
of 542
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2017, 5:31 pm
The judge noted that although he “inclined to agree” that the publication of the photographs per se served little public interest, it is the public interest in the non-disclosure of press sources that the court must protect – “As forcefully pointed out by Laws LJ in the Ashworth Hospital Authority case [Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2033], such public interest is constant whatever the merits of the particular publication. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 5:06 pm
This is an appeal from a decision of Tugendhat J [2014] EWHC 1170 (QB) Cooke v MGN, Permission to Appeal granted by judge on 26 September 2014. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 3:27 am
Although it is agreed that this alert system complies with Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, safeguarding the right to freedom of expression and the press, there is no point at which Article 10 trumps Article 8 (Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22 and In Re S [2004] UKHL 47). [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 4:06 pm
There is still a tension between the ruling of the House of Lords (as it then was) in Campbell v MGN and the subsequent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Von Hannover v Germany. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 4:03 am
We are aware of the following media law cases due which are due to be heard in the courts of England and Wales in the Michaelmas term Libel Trials Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd 12 October 2015 (time estimate, 7 days) Umayor v Nwalcamma 12 October 2015 (time estimate, 3 days) Wilkes v Wilshaw 23 November 2015 ((time estimate, 2 days) Harassment and Privacy trials Walliams v Associates Newspapers and ors, 16 November 2015 (time estimate, 5 days) Brand & anr v Berki 30 Nov (time… [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 5:09 pm
A judge might decide, though, that the photographs are a different matter and, as in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, that they go too far. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:04 pm
It is well established that this “view” can exist both before and after publication (Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633). [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 8:00 am
I attended the contempt “trial” in July (politely referred to as “the attorney general’s application for a motion for committal”) of MGN Limited and News Group Newspapers Limited, respectively publishers of the Daily Mirror and the Sun, on a watching brief basis. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 10:36 am
([2001] QB 967) Campbell v MGN ([2004] 2 AC 457), McKennitt v Ash ([2008] QB 73), Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers ([2008] 1 QB 103), Murray v Express Newspapers ([2009] Ch 481) – and that Mr Justice Eady was not party to a single one of these decisions (although appeals against his rulings were dismissed in McKennitt and Lord Browne). [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 4:01 pm
More recently, an early decision under the new Defamation Act, Cooke v MGN Ltd, suggests that a “prompt and prominent” apology may even go so far as to a neutralise the serious harm needed to found a claim. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 4:03 pm
The Judge’s approach to anonymity (and that expounded in the Gray and JIH cases) should be contrasted with that of Sharp J in the XJA case last month and that of Eady J in his recently published judgment CDE v MGN plc ([2010] EWHC 3308 (QB)) where, after a contested inter partes hearing and numerous submissions , he gave a detailed explanation of his decision to grant anonymity in a non-blackmail case (see [74] to [89]). [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 1:23 pm
Thus in Theakston v MGN ([2002] EMLR 398) although the claimant was refused an injunction to restrain publication of a story about a visit to a brothel, he did grant an injunction to restrain the publication of a photograph of the claimant inside the brothel. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 4:41 pm
There were 11 judgments after the trials of preliminary issues in libel cases Spicer v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1439 (QB) Travel Insurance Facilities v Times [2019] EWHC 1337 (QB) Allen v Times Newspapers [2019] EWHC 1235 (QB) Feyziyev v The Journalism Development Network Association [2019] EWHC 957 (QB) Rochester v Ingham House Ltd [2019] EWHC 847 (QB) Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 650 (QB) Poroshenko v BBC [2019] EWHC 213 (QB) Koutsogiannis v The Random House… [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 12:44 am
That submission recommended that the lead in England and Wales be followed, as did the Department of Journalism (pdf) in the School of Media, Dublin Institute of Technology, the Business Journalists’ Association(pdf), Google (pdf), MGN (pdf), NewsBrands Ireland (pdf), and Ronan Daly Jermyn (pdf). [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 2:34 am
The decision of the ECtHR in MGN v United Kingdom, which held that the AJA scheme was incompatible with article 10 of the Convention, concerned the balancing of the rights guaranteed by article 10 with article 6 rights. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:27 am
And it is a decade now since the seminal decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 6:51 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Faith Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 907 (29 July 2011) Suckrajh, R (on the application of) v The Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 938 (29 July 2011) Iqbal v Ahmed [2011] EWCA Civ 900 (29 July 2011) Hayes v Merseyside Police [2011] EWCA Civ 911 (29 July 2011) Austin & Ors v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 928 (29 July 2011) Modi & Anor v Clarke [2011] EWCA Civ 937 (29 July 2011)… [read post]
15 May 2010, 12:22 am
The other three are Williams v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 3150 (QB) and Lonzim Plc v Sprague [2009] EWHC 2838 (QB) and Budu v BBC [2010] EWHC 616 (QB). [read post]
26 Feb 2011, 5:24 am
Discusses MGN Ltd v UK (App No. 39401/04) on whether the requirement that the defendant newspaper pay the claimant’s costs in a privacy case under a conditional fee agreement that included success fees of 95 and 100% was disproportionate and breached the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression under ECHR, art 10. [read post]
25 May 2011, 5:57 am
” Where there is “a situation giving rise to favouritism or advancement through corruption” (Campbell v MGN Ltd 2004) then it could be legitimate to publish the fact that there had been a sexual relationship. [read post]
