Search for: "Tomlinson v. Tomlinson"
Results 101 - 120
of 532
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2017, 4:24 pm
In the case of Rubio Dosamantes v Spain (Judgment of 21 February 2017)(in French only) the Third Section held that the dismissal of the applicant’s domestic claims was a breach of her Article 8 rights. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:05 am
re v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 5:07 pm
The trial judges in Campbell v MGN and Douglas v Hello! [read post]
22 Jun 2014, 10:06 am
In the case of Stichting Ostade Blade v Netherlands (App 8406/06, 27 May 2014) the Third Section of the Court of Human Rights held that an Article 10 application by a Dutch magazine arising out of a police raid was inadmissible. [read post]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 Apr 2013, 5:08 pm
” (Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942, at 948). [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]
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]
