Search for: "MGN"
Results 301 - 320
of 542
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2011, 4:32 pm
Perhaps the best known example is the MGN/Naomi Campbell case in which privacy and costs issues got an intense scrutiny from the Strasbourg Court. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:50 am
Unlike, say, Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] AC 457, [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004), this is not a case of Cowen on intensely private and personal time, seeking private help for very personal demons. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 4:59 am
For example, Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) revealed that Carly Storey was paid £16,000 by the defendant, Mirror Group Newspapers. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 4:43 pm
– Brian Cathcart Case Law: Gulati v MGN Ltd, A landmark decision on the quantum of privacy damages – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori Case Law: “Spiller v Joseph – the New Defence of Honest Comment” – Catherine Rhind Case Law: Iqbal v Dean Manson, harassment by letter – Edward Craven Defamation Act 2013: The public interest defence and digital communications – Jacob Rowbottom Case Law: Růžový Panter, OS v Czech Republic:… [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 1:00 am
On Tuesday 24 January until Thursday 26 January, the Supreme Court will hear the appeals of Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood; Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd; and Frost & Ors v MGN Ltd. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 4:43 pm
Three years ago, he decided the landmark breach of privacy/damages case of Gulati and others v Mirror Group Newspapers after another 12-day hearing where he delivered a comprehensive 205-page judgment awarding a total of £1,237,000 in damages to eight representative celebrities whose privacy had been invaded by MGN’s admitted hacking of their personal data. [read post]
16 Aug 2015, 4:09 pm
The financial costs have started to become clear as a result of Mr Justice Mann’s judgment in Gulati v MGN. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 4:12 pm
Recent awards in the much publicised decision in Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch), however, far exceed sums awarded to a claimant in any reported privacy case then and since. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 5:51 am
In the case of an individual claimant (but not a corporate body), damages in defamation are also to provide some compensation for the hurt, distress and other injury to feelings which publication of the libel and, if relevant, the subsequent behaviour of the defendant, has caused to the injured party – see for instance John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586, 607” [10] The court considered the extent of the publication; as no figures were provided by the Defendant it accepted the… [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 4:35 pm
Section 1(1) codified the common law rule adumbrated by Tugendhat J in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) (16 June 2010) (the claimant was successful at the subsequent trial:[2011] EWHC 1884 (QB) (26 July 2011); on Thornton and s1(1), see Cooke v MGN [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014) (currently under appeal);Lachaux v Independent Print [2015] EWHC 2242 (QB) (30 July 2015)). [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 4:07 pm
Concerns regarding the uncertainty of the rule would appear to have been borne out in the first case decided in England and Wales under section 1 of the 2013 Act (Cooke v MGN). [read post]
14 Apr 2018, 4:18 pm
It sounds true that many claimants would struggle to prove factual harm to reputation at trial, but of the 50-odd cases which have mentioned section 1, I think only three resulted in the defendant winning at trial on “serious harm” (Cooke v MGN [2015] 1 WLR 895; Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing [2016] EMLR 12; Umeyor v Ibe [2016] EWHC 862 (QB). [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 10:23 am
Opening the case on behalf of claimants at the High Court David Sherborne said that ‘It is a reasonable inference that phone hacking was rife at all three of MGN’s national titles’ – the Sunday Mirror, the People and the Daily Mirror. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 12:18 am
Reserved Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding: Ferdinand v MGN, heard 4 to 6 July 2011 (Nicol J) WXY v Gewanter, heard 11-15, 18-19 July 2011 (Slade J) Commissioner of Police v Times Newspapers, heard 18-20 & 22 July 2011 (Tugendhat J) Morrison v Buckinghamshire CC, heard 20 to 21 July (HHJ Parkes QC) Share this:PrintEmailTwitterFacebookLike this:Be the first to like this post. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 1:00 am
MGN and Steve McClaren v. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 4:36 pm
Judgments The following reserved judgment in media law cases are outstanding: OPO v MLA, heard 19 and 20 January 2015 (UK Supreme Court) Murray v Associated Newspapers, heard 21 January 2015 (Longmore, Ryder and Sharp LJJ) Various Claimants v MGN, heard 9-13, 18, 24-25 March 2015 (Mann J). [read post]
11 May 2015, 3:55 am
The tort of misuse of private information arose as a result of the recognition by the courts that “the values enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] are now part of the cause of action for breach of confidence” (Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 [17]). [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 1:00 am
Times Newspaper Ltd v Flood; Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd; Frost & Ors v MGN Ltd, heard 24-26 January 2017. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 4:33 pm
There will also be another phone hacking trial – once again against MGN. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 4:59 pm
Lord Bannatyne’s judgment affirms, for the first time, that Scottish common law recognizes a right to privacy which is on all fours with the right recognised in England and Wales since Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 [126]. [read post]
