Search for: "Tomlinson v. Tomlinson"
Results 101 - 120
of 504
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2019, 5:54 am
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of the Matrix Chambers media and information practice group. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:17 pm
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a specialist in media and information law and an editor of Inforrm [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 4:13 pm
In the case of Bild GmbH v Germany [2023] ECHR 851 the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights found that an order that a publisher should cease publication of CCTV footage of an arrest without pixelating the face of one of the officers involved was a violation of Article 10 as it could lead to an unacceptable ban on future publication on matters of public interest. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 4:15 pm
It is well established that the exemption applies both before and after publication (see Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633). [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm
In Mosley at para 229 Eady J directed himself to take into account awards in defamation cases, and referred also to Gleaner Company Ltd v Abrahams [2004] 1 AC 628. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 2:44 am
In the case of R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police ([2020] EWCA Civ 1058) the Court of Appeal held that the live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”) used by the South Wales Police Force (“SWP”) was unlawful as it was not “in accordance with law” for the purposes of Article 8 of the ECHR. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 6:33 am
That Court is due to hear an appeal, in the case of Trkulja v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 4:15 pm
On 20 November 2015, the Master of the Rolls, Tomlinson and Bean LJJ handed down judgment in Weller & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1176, upholding Dingemans J’s finding of liability for misuse of private information (and breach of the DPA, although this did not add anything as it was common ground that the claim for infringement of the DPA would either stand or fall with the claim for misuse of private information). [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]
25 Apr 2011, 5:18 pm
([2001] QB 967) Campbell v MGN ([2004] 2 AC 457), McKennitt v Ash ([2008] QB 73), Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers ([2008] 1 QB 103), Murray v Express Newspapers ([2009] Ch 481), Donald v Ntuli ([2010] EWCA Civ 1276) and, most recently, JIH v News Group Newspapers ([2011] EWCA Civ 42). [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 4:10 pm
In the case of Ewing v Crown Court sitting at Cardiff and Newport ([2016] EWHC 183 (Admin)) confirms an important feature of the open justice principle: that permission is not needed in order to take notes in Court. [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 5:08 pm
” (Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942, at 948). [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 5:28 pm
The trial judge in Campbell v MGN was Mr Justice Morland since retired and in Douglas v Hello! [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 5:06 pm
Exemplary damages for libel were upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hill v Church of Scientology ([1995] 2 SCR 1130). [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 2:00 am
In the case of Ion Cârstea v. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 7:42 am
In this episode, Dan Tench, partner at CMS, and Hugh Tomlinson QC, barrister at Matrix Chambers, discuss the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 and its implications. [read post]
26 Jul 2023, 8:53 am
Criteria to be applied In contrast to the Chamber, the Grand Chamber considered that the Axel Springer criteria for balancing Articles 8 and 10 (see Axel Springer v Germany [2012] ECHR 227)) were not applicable. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 12:49 am
This was first posted on 26 February 2010 and is the last of a three part post in which Hugh Tomlinson QC considers the future of the law of privacy in the UK. [read post]
26 Nov 2011, 1:40 am
Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of ‘public watchdog’ (Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (1992) 14 EHRR 153, [59(b)]). [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 4:10 pm
In the case of Lachaux v Independent Print ([2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) Warby J gave judgement on preliminary issues including in relation to “serious harm” in a number of libel actions brought against three newspapers and the Huffington Post. [read post]
