Search for: "WELLS v. REYNOLDS" Results 461 - 480 of 659
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2011, 5:05 pm by INFORRM
The Reynolds defence, for example, has been discussed in courts across the Commonwealth, e.g. in Canada (Grant v Torstar [2009] SCC 61). [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 9:04 am by INFORRM
While the Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh had regarded it as an open question whether Reynolds applies to opinion, Lords Nicholls and Hobhouse had said in Reynolds ([2001] 2 AC 127, at 201 and 193-5 per Lord Nicholls and 237-8 per Lord Hobhouse.) that the expression of opinion was protected, if at all by, by fair comment. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 9:13 am by Daithí
(Apparently Godfrey v Demon is the leading case. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 2:25 am by Rosalind English
The common law defence of public interest which has developed since Reynolds v Times Newspapers extends to mainstream journalism but the uncertainty of its scope has created a chilling effect on reporting generally. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:09 am by INFORRM
  This re-definition of the defence means that the virtues (such as they are) and vices (which are well known) of the Reynolds defence remain intact – it remains complex and costly, focusing on the quality of journalism rather than on truth. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 5:01 am by INFORRM
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of De Rossa v Independent Newspapers endorsed the view that juries should not be given guidelines on damages by judges. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
Issues for discussion Where should the balance between reputation and freedom of speech be, in Australian law as well as internationally? [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am by INFORRM
This was approved by Sullivan CJ in the Irish Supreme Court in Sinclair v Gogarty [1937] IR 377 (see also Gallagher v Tuohy (1924) 58 ILTR 134 (Murnaghan J); Connolly v Radio Telifís Eireann [1991] 2 IR 446 (Carroll J); Reynolds v Malocco [1999] 2 IR 203, [1999] 1 ILRM 289, [1998] IEHC 175 (11 December 1998) (Kelly J)); and it represents the law in Australia (Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46 (28 September… [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 9:11 pm by Ted Frank
[GMU Law] PLF brief in the Wal-Mart v. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
The decision in Campbell v MGN The facts of Campbell are well known. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 4:26 am by INFORRM
He went on to recognise that “It may well be therefore that some libel actions should be tried in stages without a jury”. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 8:27 pm by cdw
Attorney General’s decision to apply that law to those who were convicted of sex crimes before the law’s enactment, [ ] Reynolds v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (“RPC”), the well known London law firm – which regularly represents media defendants in libel and privacy cases – has launched its new RPC Privacy Blog. [read post]