Search for: "Reynolds v. Nichols"
Results 21 - 40
of 48
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2019, 4:33 pm
The defence was so called because it emanated from the judgment of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers when Lord Nicholls set out a non-exhaustive list of ten factors to be taken into account when deciding whether the defence of qualified privilege should be available to a defendant newspaper reporting on matters of public interest: The seriousness of the allegation. [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 5:47 pm
” (Hays Plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068 (QB) at [62]). [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
Cusson v Quan 2007 ONCA 771). [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
See Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 2 AC 127 HL, which created the defence, and Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359 HL, which revitalised it. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
In Reynolds v Malocco (above), Kelly J held that the jurisdiction to award an interim injunction in libel cases was of a delicate nature, and that the courts must be circumspect to ensure that it does not unnecessarily interfere with the right of freedom of expression. [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 2:01 am
This can be a heavy burden, particularly where the charge is a grave one, but requiring defendants to prove truth is not incompatible with Article 10: see McVicar v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 22; Steel v UK [2005] EMLR 314. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:54 am
It lists, as Lord Nicholls did in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (1999), factors to be taken into account by the court when deciding whether a defendant has acted responsibly, but as several cases in the lower courts have shown, judges may be encouraged to view these as tripwires for defendants. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 4:56 pm
They point out that in Bonnick v Morris ([2003] 1 AC 300) the Privy Council took the view that the single meaning rule could not be applied without modification when a court was considering the Reynolds defence and the question of whether a journalist had acted responsibly. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:30 am
It seems to us that that is exactly the balance which Lord Nicholls was articulating in Reynolds…. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
Nonetheless it did not recommend pure codification of Reynolds (p,26): it recommended further work by the Ministry of Justice on whether it is possible to reconcile the competing rights to reputation and freedom of expression in a way which clarified Reynolds in the light of (Mohammed) Jameel v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am
In that context, it has been held that “the values enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 are now part of the cause of action for breach of confidence” (See Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 at [17] (Lord Nicholls) and that it is necessary to consider Strasbourg jurisprudence to establish the scope of that domestic cause of action, since those Articles are now “not merely of persuasive or parallel effect” but are “the very content of… [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 4:40 pm
As anticipated, and affirmed in Economou v de Freitas [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) (see our blog here), the new section 4 defence is being interpreted broadly in line with the principles of the common law ‘Reynolds’ privilege (although there remains some debate between practitioners as to the level of importance to be attributed to each of the old ‘Reynolds criteria’ – Lord Nicholls’ checklist for good… [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:52 am
As Lord Nicholls remarked in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, ‘Once besmirched by an unfounded allegation in a national newspaper, a reputation can be damaged for ever. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 4:33 pm
The case involves consideration of the operation of the “public interest” Reynolds defence and will be the third time this area has been considered by the highest court. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 5:30 am
This approach directly contradicts the understanding set out by Lords Nicholls and Hobhouse in Reynolds to the effect that the defence applies only to erroneous statements of fact. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 7:10 am
The rule has been disapplied in “Reynolds/Jameel” cases, because of the need to make that defence practical and effective: Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300 PC at [21-22] (Lord Nicholls). [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]
21 Sep 2020, 6:43 am
Recent cases citing these rights together include Watson v Campos [2016] IEHC 18 (14 January 2016) [28] (Barrett J); Rooney v Shell E&P Ireland [2017] IEHC 63 (20 January 2017) [31]-[32] (Ní Raifeartaigh J); Ryanair v Channel 4 Television [2017] IEHC 651 (05 October 2017) [49]-[52] (Meenan J). [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 7:44 am
Smith Reynolds Foundation, the Jesse Ball DuPont Fund, the Knight Foundation, and the Fletcher Foundation, among many others. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 1:22 pm
Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008) abrogated by Reynolds v. [read post]
