Search for: "Dow v. Jones"
Results 141 - 160
of 343
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599, a decision with significant implications for data protection law and practice. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 5:15 pm
Whether this would be wise will depend on the circumstances, but given that the Tesla case confirms that the principles set out in Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946 and Lait v Evening Standard [2011] EWCA Civ 859 apply equally to malicious falsehood claims, there would have to be good reasons for not suing on the original – particularly if your own actions in the interim suggest that you have not suffered any damage. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 12:35 am
In Dow Jones v Gutnick [2002] the High Court held that, in respect of an internet post, publication is a “bilateral” act and only occurs when the post is downloaded, not when it is posted. [read post]
3 Oct 2009, 2:19 pm
" As to the latter, he observes: This was an issue in the News Corporation's acquisition of Dow Jones' acquisition, where the Bancroft family controlling Dow Jones faced the same dilemma. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 5:00 am
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 4:57 pm
The threshold of seriousness Master Bell reflected upon two notable cases, Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946 and Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 5:44 pm
In her concluding remarks Judith Gibson notes that Early decisions, such as Dow-Jones and Company v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 at [75] – [92], appear not to have appreciated that the Internet was not just another form of television or radio. [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 8:07 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 11:22 pm
* None of the factors relied on by Clifford to show an abuse of process under the principles in Dow Jones & Co Inc v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75 had much weight.* Burrell's claim was only stale because the breach of confidence had been concealed and the proceedings delayed by the joinder application.* While Burrell's own publication in his 2003 book could indicate that he did not care about the privacy of the information, which could significantly… [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 2:55 am
Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti for the tip-off) Related posts:Little on Internet Choice of Law Governance Internet Defamation and Choice of Law in Dow Jones v Gutnick Italian Society of International Law’s XVIII Annual Meeting (Naples, 13-14 June 2013) [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm
Dow Jones [2005] QB 946). [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 6:04 am
’ Hearing At hearing, counsel for Dr O’Doherty extended the bases of his application, and contended that the proceedings ought also to be struck out under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which provides that the court may dispose summarily of the claim if it ‘has no realistic prospect of success’), and under the so-called Jameel principle articulated in Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (since the cost of pursuing proceedings was… [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 6:53 am
In Dow Chemical Co. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 6:53 am
In Dow Chemical Co. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:05 am
On 13 December 2023, there was a hearing of an application for strike out in the data protection case of Pacini v Dow Jones before HHJ Parkes KC. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 2:39 am
Dow Jones & Co. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 12:00 am
The Defendant pleaded justification, and in mid-2010, applied that an order for service out of the jurisdiction be set aside on the grounds, derived from Jameel (Youssef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc. [2005] QB 946, that the Tweet did not constitute a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 1:22 am
In Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946; [2005] EWCA Civ 75, Lord Phillips of Worth Matraver MR (pic) giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, found that a defamation claim could be struck out as an abuse of process if it did not disclose that “a real and substantial tort” had been committed within the jurisdiction. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:09 am
The Defendant pleaded justification, and in mid-2010, applied that an order for service out of the jurisdiction be set aside on the grounds, derived from Jameel (Youssef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc. [2005] QB 946, that the Tweet did not constitute a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 11:06 pm
The second basis for the application was the familiar Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946 jurisdiction to stop a claim that doesn’t serve the legitimate purpose of protecting the claimant’s reputation. [read post]
