Search for: "MGN"
Results 81 - 100
of 542
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Oct 2017, 2:40 am
MGN had agreed to pay him substantial damages and costs and had apologised. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 2:18 pm
He noted that “one facet of the public interest can be correcting a false image, referring to the PCC Code and to Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 [65]. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 2:21 am
On 1 December 2023, Mr Justice Jay handed down judgement in favour of the defendant in the case of Dyson v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3092 (KB). [read post]
29 May 2022, 4:05 pm
MGN has failed in its attempt to obtain summary judgment in the managed phone hacking litigation. [read post]
11 Feb 2018, 4:57 pm
Statements in Open Court and Apologies We have already mentioned the statements in open court in the cases of Grant v MGN and Hames v NGN. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 9:20 pm
The Court had received written submissions in light of MGN and it was expected that this would give an early indication as to whether challenges to success fees in light of MGN might succeed. [read post]
27 Jan 2015, 4:15 pm
An allegation of infidelity is defamatory, but an allegation of infidelity which imperils or destroys a home and family unit is particularly disreputable. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 7:40 am
Finally, some vindication for MGN nearly 10 years after the publication of its original article. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 4:52 pm
The preliminary issues agreed by the parties in Cooke v MGN ([2014] EMLR 31) and directed by the Master, which came before Bean J, envisaged two issues being determined sequentially: (1) whether the words complained of bore the meanings alleged by the Claimants or any other meaning that (subject to serious harm) was defamatory of them and, if so, what meaning; and (2) whether the publication of those words had caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimants’… [read post]
16 Dec 2023, 6:09 am
On 15 June 2023 Fancourt J, handed down judgment in the case of Duke of Sussex and Ors v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3217 (Ch). [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 4:55 pm
The proposed tort bears close comparison to the UK’s misuse of private information action, developed from Campbell v MGN ([2004] AC 457). [read post]
4 Oct 2012, 8:24 pm
Accordingly, MGN supplied a new “corrected” invoice. [read post]
11 Apr 2021, 4:40 pm
On 30 March 2021, Mann J handed down what is likely to be his final “phone hacking” judgment in ruling in Various Claimants v MGN [2021] EWHC 771 (Ch) regarding amendments to some of the Claimants’ statements of case and costs. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 11:01 am
In relation to MGN’s apology she said I felt like it had no sincerity whatsoever. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 12:08 pm
Image via WikipediaThe always informative Web site for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (www.rcfp.org) reported last week on a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (MGN, Ltd. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 6:55 am
In the Mirror MGN phone hacking cases, and as was observed on more than one occasion by Mr. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 8:08 am
” (The rule in MGN v UK in domestic law) If so: Whether the effect of this should be that the costs orders made in the appeals must be amended to exclude the defendant in each case from paying the success fee and the ATE premium for which the claimant is liable (The application of the rule in MGN v UK to the appeals). [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 2:03 am
The Particulars of Claim are available on Lawtel [£] The phone hacking cases of Eddie Jordan v MGN, Michael Ambrose v MGN, Stephen Rider v MGN and Rupert Lowe v MGN are listed to be tried together before the Managing Judge, Mann J on 3 July 2017, with a time estimate of 10 days. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm
The recent judgment in Dyson v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3092, in which the Defendant publisher succeeded in its defence of honest opinion, provides important authority on the interpretation of section 3(4)(a) of the Defamation Act 2013. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 4:05 pm
” (The rule in MGN v UK in domestic law) If so: Whether the effect of this should be that the costs orders made in the appeals must be amended to exclude the defendant in each case from paying the success fee and the ATE premium for which the claimant is liable (The application of the rule in MGN v UK to the appeals). [read post]
