Search for: "INFORRM"
Results 621 - 640
of 950
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Feb 2018, 4:05 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a specialist in media and information law at Matrix Chambers and an editor of Inforrm. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 5:30 pm
As reported in a recent post Inforrm has researched all the “anonymised” hearings in the Queen’s Bench Division in the first quarter of 2011 – there were eleven hearings, seven of which have produced published public judgments. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 3:32 am
As noted on Inforrm, on 21 March 2018, the UK Supreme Court gave permission to appeal in the case of Lachaux v Independent Print. [read post]
8 May 2017, 1:45 am
As noted on Inforrm last week, the Judge in charge of the Media and Communications List, Warby J is consulting on a number of procedural questions. [read post]
28 May 2011, 10:48 pm
As Inforrm’s Hugh Tomlinson QC recently observed in the context of the impending UK reform: “The arguments in favour of a statutory cap on damages are not convincing and, taking account of developments in the law of defamation over the past two decades, it must be doubtful whether a statutory cap is needed at all. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 4:49 pm
A former print journalist, he now contributes to online publications such as Inforrm, Byline Times and openDemocracy. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 10:30 pm
As the Inforrm blog points out, not all of the articles complained of were straightforwardly about religious doctrine: although the background was religious, there were also allegations that the claimant was a party to “conspiracies to provoke violence”. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 2:02 am
See, for example, McKeogh v John Doe [2012] IEHC 95, or the recent jurisdictional issues in the cases of Coleman and CSI Manufacturing (reported on Inforrm here). [read post]
2 Apr 2022, 1:59 am
. ● “South Africa: Defamation and vindication, the Supreme Court of Appeal’s flawed approach” by Global Freedom of Expression expert Dario Milo on Inforrm’s Blog discusses the negative impacts of two recent South African Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decisions. [read post]
20 May 2015, 3:30 am
Background A summary of the subject matter of the case was set out in my Inforrm posting after the Court of Appeal decision which is here. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 3:42 am
Indeed, the UN Report accepts that in some scenarios internet access will need to be restricted, for example in the case of sex offenders and terrorist suspects – which is also the conclusion of this excellent 2011 post on Inforrm’s blog. [read post]
20 May 2012, 2:00 am
The media law blog, Inforrm, published this summary of the Bill, which takes a detailed look at the main clauses. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 5:14 am
The conference dealt with “suppressive measures of the Government infringing on the freedom of press, harassment of scribes by security forces as well as on legislations concerning official secrets act, parliamentary privilege, sting operation, obscenity etc” In his opening address retired Delhi High Court Judge, A P Shah, said the law was being misused to harass the media (see a news report here) Blogs Thank you to MediaPal@LSE for drawing attention to Inforrm’s… [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 5:07 pm
I here reiterate the substance of that note for the readers of INFORRM. [read post]
1 Jun 2019, 5:54 am
The need for strict compliance with these requirements has been repeatedly emphasised in the case law (see the 2012 Inforrm post, Practice: Without notice injunction procedure – a further warning for practitioners). [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 8:18 am
Case Law: Bernard Gray v UVW – privacy injunctions and anonymity – Henry Fox – Inforrm’s Blog: Mr Justice Tugendhat has returned to the subject of anonymity in privacy actions. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:53 pm
Lord Neuberger’s committee on super injunctions, as mentioned in this week’s Inforrm round up, is due to report by the end of April. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 4:05 pm
Please let Inforrm know: inforrmeditorial@gmail.com. [read post]
6 Sep 2020, 4:21 pm
Writing for Inforrm’s Blog Stephanie Alice Baker, Matthew Wade, Michael James Walsh argue that tech companies’ strategies to address the COVID-19 “infodemic” have resulted in overly broad and inconsistent interpretations of “harm” to justify restrictions which are undermining effectiveness, transparency as well as the public trust. ● In case you missed it, the National Law University Delhi hosted a discussion Celebrating Three… [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 4:59 am
As Inforrm’s privacy injunction table shows, “blackmail” is cited by judges in a number of recent civil cases; a separate complaint to the police may also be made by the claimant. [read post]
