Search for: "POUND v. CAMPBELL"
Results 101 - 120
of 140
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2011, 8:54 am
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). [read post]
16 May 2011, 11:52 am
Furthermore, they were clearly expounded seven years ago in two decisions of the House of Lords which was, of course, at that time the highest court in this jurisdiction: Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 and Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 5:43 pm
Whilst this sum was a substantial improvement on the £2500 awarded to Naomi Campbell and the £3750 Mr and Mrs Douglas received, the Mosley award has of course been dwarfed by settlements; chiefly James Murdoch’s £700,000 settlement to Gordon Taylor and the subsequent arrangement with Max Clifford. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
The claimant was awarded £12,000. [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]
26 Feb 2011, 5:24 am
Campbell’s soup, James Harrison & Clare Arthurs (Manches LLP). [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 7:29 am
Price: £70. web page here. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 6:55 am
1972 - 129.5 pound Olympic gold Medal. 355-21-5. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 6:06 am
Damages were assessed in the sum of £10,000. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:09 pm
The decision in Campbell v MGN The facts of Campbell are well known. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 3:06 am
The success fees which Campbell sought to recover far outweighed the amount which she had recovered in damages (£365,077 success fees against £3,500 damages) and were disproportionate. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 12:08 pm
Although Campbell's damages were only 3500 pounds ($5,597)--more than the combined weight of 35 supermodels--the media defendant was assessed "success fees" totaling 1.1 million pounds ($1.7 million).The European Court of Human Rights found the assessment disproportionate to the damages suffered by the plaintiff and an attempt to stifle freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 5:58 am
The case of MGN Limited v United Kingdom (Application No. 39401/04) was a case involving the supermodel Naomi Campbell’s right to privacy versus a newspaper’s right to freedom of expression. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 3:22 am
Campbell was liable to pay a shortfall in costs of £456,831.07. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 4:05 pm
The jury awarded Ms Clift damages of £12,000. [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:08 pm
It was conceded by the claimant in the Naomi Campbell case that it was in the “public interest” to set the record straight about her false public statements about drug-taking (See Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 at [24], [58] and [151]). [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 4:19 pm
The bill presented by Ms Campbell’s lawyers at the end of the case was for over £1m, almost 60% of which related to the House of Lords appeal: Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) ([2005] 1 WLR 3488). [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 4:30 am
[iv] At s. 4 [v] At ss. 5,6 [vi] Government of Canada. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:53 pm
In Campbell v. [read post]
