Search for: "State v. Eady"
Results 41 - 60
of 285
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2010, 4:35 pm
Eady J has twice held that the defence of fair comment cannot apply where the defamatory sting is a matter of verifiable fact – Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal). [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 4:05 am
In Mackereth v. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:33 am
On 18 February 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its much awaited judgment in the appeal of R v Jogee [2013] EWCA Crim 1433, which was consolidated with the Privy Council appeal of Ruddock v The Queen JCPC 2015/0020. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 12:21 am
Eady J has twice held that the defence of fair comment cannot apply where the defamatory sting is a matter of verifiable fact –Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal). [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 4:27 pm
At paragraph 231 Mr Justice Eady stated that monetary compensation is therefore not an effective remedy for a breach of privacy. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm
The OPQ case provides one possible “way out” of this unsatisfactory state of affairs. [read post]
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]
15 Mar 2012, 12:00 am
However, where does Tamiz leave the state of the law on common law publication? [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 11:30 am
(relisted after the November 1 conference) Eady v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 11:17 pm
The Judge stated that there is yet to be a definitive decision establishing how web publishers fit into the traditional framework. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
As Eady J said in X & Y v Persons Unknown[2006] EWHC 2783 (QB), [2007] EMLR 290 at para 72: “…the Spycatcher doctrine [Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc [1988] Ch 333 at 375, 380] would go on inhibiting third parties from publishing the relevant information notionally pending a trial which would never actually take place. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 4:50 pm
The Judge described this as the development by Eady J of a “passive instrument” test [85]. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 4:09 pm
This is a principle that has been stated and re-stated by the Supreme Court of Canada. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 1:25 am
It would have risked losing time, in circumstances in which time is already a limited resource. 1220: Lord Garnier QC turns to consider political motives and to counter Sir James Eadie QC’s submissions made on behalf of the Prime Minister. 1215: Lord Garnier QC says there is a “world of difference” between dissolution and prorogation. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 5:20 pm
Unenforceability in the United States The Judge noted that, since 1964 when the Supreme Court of the United States decided New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964), there has not been a single reported State or Federal decision in which a foreign defamation judgment has been recognised and enforced in the United States [89]. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 5:30 pm
Mr Justice Eady replaced as senior libel judge. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 9:38 pm
Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 1:29 am
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and Council, implemented in the United Kingdom by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, requires member states to take steps to ensure the free movement of information society services between member states. [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]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
There is no Parliamentary authorisation for the loss of rights in any legislation made by Parliament and, in the absence of this, the appeal should be dismissed. 14:27: Lord Reed suggests “life has moved on from the times of Dicey”. 14:23: Lord Carnworth asks a question about the ‘one-line’ bill which James Eadie QC suggested the government would introduce if it loses the appeal. 14:21: Dominic Chambers QC summarises that the outcome of the… [read post]
