Search for: "MGN"
Results 41 - 60
of 542
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jan 2011, 3:22 am
That said had MGN considered Ms. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 10:16 am
The stories about the divorce were then followed up by other MGN titles. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 3:46 am
As a result the first ground of MGN’s appeal was dismissed. [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 2:33 am
This was so as not to prejudice the integrity of any future trial of MGN employees. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 2:33 am
The Article 10 rights of MGN were engaged but should not be given anything like the sort of weight which they were given in MGN. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 3:06 am
The proceedings eventually came before the House of Lords and MGN was ordered to pay damages of £3,500. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 6:24 am
MGN’s appeal related to the additional liabilities sought to be recovered by representative claimants in the phone hacking litigation, who had entered into the agreements between 2011 and 2014. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 8:12 am
MGN admitted that 14 articles about him were the product of hacking. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 1:06 pm
MGN also admitted that its repeated and prolonged intrusions into innocent people’s lives over, in some instances, a decade, could have been prevented or interrupted but that it failed to properly investigate these disgraceful actions and/or to act sufficiently when the allegations of MGN’s journalists’ unlawful activities were first alleged and publicly emerged in 2006 and when the first inquiries into these wrongdoings were made. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 10:32 pm
Hot on the heels of Master Gordon-Saker’s proportionality decision in BNM v MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) is another decision from the Senior Courts Costs Office, this time from Master Rowley in Dr Brian May v Wavell Group Plc. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 10:48 pm
Much of the commentary on Master Gordon-Saker’s recent proportionality decision in BNM v MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) has understandably focused on the reductions made to the “reasonable” costs (approximately a 50% reduction). [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 3:04 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) QD (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 620 (24 June 2009) P and P (Children), Re [2009] EWCA Civ 610 (24 June 2009) Reeves v Blake [2009] EWCA Civ 611 (24 June 2009) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Johnson v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 1481 (QB) (24 June 2009) Marketmaker [...] [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 9:43 pm
The Senior Costs Judge Master Gordon-Saker prefaced his recent decision on proportionality, in Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs), with the warning: “this judgment should not be taken as any attempt at providing guidance. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 9:00 am
MGN LTD, reveals that on appeal, the award for exemplary damages was reduced because the newspaper did not attack Mr. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 2:35 am
Ferdinand will pay MGN’s legal costs.” Full story The Guardian, 29th September 2011 Source: www.guardian.co.uk [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 3:10 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) McMillan-Smith, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 732 (08 April 2009) Awosika, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 625 (18 March 2009) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd [2009] EWHC 781 (QB) (08 April 2009) Peacock v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 769 (QB) (08 April 2009) High [...] [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 4:07 pm
The Supreme Court itself noted this point in relation to the claim in Frost v MGN: “bearing in mind the persistence, pervasiveness and flagrancy of the hacking and blagging, and the lack of any public significance of the information which it would be expected to and did reveal, it appears to me that this is not a case where the Rule [in MGN v UK] can properly be invoked by MGN. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:05 am
The court held that MGN had been involved in extensive phone hacking between 1996 until 2011, with the knowledge of the editors at the time. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 4:27 am
MGN sought permission to appeal against the Judge’s determination of meaning and his order striking out the defence. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 6:26 am
The Supreme Court yesterday gave a decision on internet defamation in Coleman v. [read post]
