Search for: "Hugh Tomlinson QC"
Results 81 - 100
of 292
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2012, 12:36 am
In a judgment handed down on 18 January 2012, the Court of Appeal in Ontario recognised, for the first time, that the common law of Ontario included a free-standing tort of intrusion on seclusion. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 4:30 pm
In the case of Haldimann v Switzerland (Judgment of 24 February 2015, available only in French), the Second Section held that the conviction of four journalists for having recorded and broadcast an interview of a private insurance broker using a hidden camera was a breach of their Article 10 rights. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 12:14 am
As a number of recent cases have made clear, the filming of policing activity in public places is a vital method of holding police to account. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:15 am
Judgment was handed down today in the privacy case of Zac Goldsmith and others v BCD ([2011] EWHC 674 (QB)). [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 4:10 pm
Background The claim arose out of decision made by HHJ Crowther QC during appeal proceedings at Cardiff Crown Court on 7 and 8 April 2014 and (adjourned part heard to Newport Crown Court) on 30 June and 1 July 2014. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 4:05 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is the joint author of The Law of Human Rights, 2nd Edn, OUP, 2009, and an editor of Inforrm. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 1:47 am
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and an editor of Inforrm. [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 4:22 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and an editor of Inforrm [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 12:52 am
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix chambers and an editor of Inforrm [read post]
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]
16 Mar 2016, 5:03 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers and an editor of Inforrm [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 4:07 pm
On 28 June 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down judgment in the controversial case of Google Inc v Equustek Solutions (2017 SCC 34) dismissing Google’s appeal against a worldwide injunction ordering it to remove websites from search results (2014 BCSC 1063). [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 4:15 pm
In the case of ML and WW v Germany ([2018] ECHR 554) (available only French), the Fifth Section of the Court of Human Rights dismissed an Article 8 “right to be forgotten” application in respect of the historic publication by the media of information concerning a murder conviction. [read post]
22 May 2015, 4:00 am
The judgment in the Mirror Phone Hacking damages case of Gulati v MGN Ltd ([2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch)) deals with a wide range of legal and factual issues. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:22 am
That, as Mr Price QC for Sergeant Flood was at pains to point out, would indeed be a “charter for malice”. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 4:10 pm
The claimant resisted this argument based on the decision in Dingle v Associated Newspapers ([1964] QC 371) in which it was held that, at common law, other publications to the same effect as the words complained of or relating to the same incident, are inadmissible in relation to the assessment of general damages for injury to reputation. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 4:04 pm
In the case of Dupate v Latvia ([2020] ECHR 819) the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights held that the publication of covertly taken photographs of the partner of a politician leaving hospital with her newborn baby was a violation of her Article 8 rights. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 6:33 am
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a specialist in media and information law at Matrix Chambers and an editor of Inforrm. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 4:24 pm
The Court of Human Rights has held that the fact that singer was well known to the public and been the subject of well publicised rumours about her sexuality did not justify the broadcast of interviews about her relationships and sexuality. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 4:33 pm
In the case of Hurbain v Belgium [2021] ECHR 544 (in French only), the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), held that an order to anonymise an article in a newspaper’s electronic archive (which referred to a person’s involvement in a fatal road traffic accident for which they were subsequently convicted) did not breach the applicant publisher’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
