Search for: "Campbell v. Sharpe"
Results 61 - 80
of 97
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2012, 2:30 am
Austria: A student group Europe v Facebook is to pursue a civil data protection case against Facebook, via Pogowasright. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 6:13 am
http://bit.ly/LLEIwp (Dean Gonsowski) Court Dismisses Countrywide Data Theft Suit - http://bit.ly/PC4fgK (Justine Gottshall) Crashing the Third Party: Experts Weigh How Far the Government Can Go in Reading Your Email -http://bit.ly/PHUzkO (Richard Brust) Days Five and Six of a Predictive Coding Narrative: Deep into the Weeds and a Computer Mind-meld Moment - http://bit.ly/NMrVLS (Ralph Losey) eDiscovery: 4 Tips for Managing the Document Review… [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:50 am
In the run-up to the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, Professor W Joseph Campbell sets out “five media myths of Watergate” in an article on the BBC website. [read post]
21 May 2012, 4:54 am
Next week in the courts On Monday 21 May 2012 the libel trial of Miller v Associated Newspapers will begin before Sharp J, sitting without a jury. [read post]
14 May 2012, 4:33 am
On 11 May 2012, Sharp J handed down judgment in the case of King v Grundon. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:52 am
In Simao v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:30 am
Alastair Campbell made a statement on his blog here. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 12:36 am
This could be a recipe for confusion” (Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 [22], Lord Nicholls). [read post]
Media Law Review of the Year 2011: Defamation, Contempt, Privacy and a Public Inquiry – Jude Townend
29 Dec 2011, 4:54 pm
Ten years after the publication of an article about Naomi Campbell, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the recovery of success fees from the Mirror would be “disproportionate“, in MGN v United Kingdom (Case No. 39401/04). [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 4:04 pm
In the Courts The trial in the case of El-Naschie v Macmillan continued before Mrs Justice Sharp last week. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 4:02 pm
On Twitter, Campbell said: “Genuinely shocked someone has seen fit to leak my statement to Leveson. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 5:41 pm
Next Week in the Courts On 11 July 2011 Mrs Justice Slade will hear the second privacy trial of the year (only the fourth since Campbell) – the case of WXY v Gewanter. [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 1:49 am
Reserved Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding: El Diwany v Ministry of Justice & the Police, Norway, heard 16 March 2011 (Sharp J). [read post]
30 May 2011, 9:26 am
Hutcheson (formerly known as “KGM”) v News Group Newspapers, heard 24 May 2011 (Master of the Rolls, Etherton and Gross LJJ) Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd, heard 26 May 2011 (Sharp J) [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 5:47 pm
In Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) Tugendhat J referred to the judgment of the House of Lords in Sim v Stretch ([1936] 2 All ER 1237) and to the judgment of Sharp J in Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group Ltd ([2009] EWHC 2779 (QB)) and held that, “whatever definition of ‘defamatory’ is adopted, it must include a qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims” [89]. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 3:30 am
The second is entitled “MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom: Naomi Campbell v. the Tabloid Press” which deals with the relationship between privacy and celebrity. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 4:22 am
Ward LJ, giving the leading judgment made it clear that the courts were bound by the decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN (No.2). [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 3:58 am
But the facts in Campbell v MGN also demonstrate that the current Government proposals for ensuring access to justice in this field will not work. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 4:05 pm
Just before the Christmas break, however, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Clift v Slough Borough Council ([2010] EWCA Civ 1171). [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 4:58 am
However, the development of a right to privacy under cases such as Max Mosely v News of the World [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) or Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22 show that a privacy remedy made be available as a result of judicial intervention where no statutory remedy under the DPA is provided. [read post]
