Search for: "Smith v. Thornton" Results 21 - 40 of 48
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2010, 9:20 am by Steve Hall
  More on the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in Baze v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
  As a result of the Court’s judgments in Smith v Dooley ([2013] NZCA 428), Young v TVNZ ([2014] NZCA 50) and Murray v Wishart ([2014] 3 NZLR 722, 729-731), the law in New Zealand currently seems to be that, depending on the circumstances of publication, a plaintiff may rely on other publications made subsequent to that complained of – even up to a year afterwards – to support the allegedly defamatory meanings said to arise. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 3:29 pm by Giles Peaker
Rather unusually, faced with one of the most coruscating High Court judgments I can recall, in AA V LB Southwark [our report here], the senior officers of Southwark Council have chosen to do neither. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
In the Courts On 28 October 2011 Sir Richard Buxton refused the defendant permission to appeal in the case of Thornton v Telegraph Media Group (see Case Tracker). [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 2:16 pm by Charon QC
RollonFriday reports… Exclusive: Herbert Smith to pay lawyers £10 an hour Herbert Smith’s new Belfast outpost is rumoured to be paying its lawyers as little as £10 per hour. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am by INFORRM
The difference between the two causes of action can be critical, as John Terry found to his cost: Terry (formerly LNS) v Persons Unknown [2010] EMLR 16 (Tugendhat J). [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 4:54 pm by INFORRM
Among the privacy cases of early 2011 was MNB v News Group Newspapers ([2011] EWHC 528 (QB)). [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
In Doyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB) (see our blog here) the defendant blogger’s public interest defence failed because he did not adequately plead and prove that he had believed it was in the public interest to publish the statement complained of. [read post]