Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A parallel case (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013) filed on the same grounds in the United States, however, was decided the other way in 2013 (against Meltwater and in favor of the equivalent newspaper licensing business, in that case Associated Press) by a US district court. In that case, the Associated Press (AP) brought suit against Meltwater Group ...
The elasticity of the common law principle enables interference with freedom of speech to be confined to what is necessary in the circumstances of the case. This elasticity enables the court to give appropriate weight, in today's conditions, to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern.
Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB) was a defamation lawsuit brought in England.The case was initiated by American actor Johnny Depp, who sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) and then-executive editor [a] Dan Wootton for libel after The Sun ran an article [b] that claimed Depp had abused his ex-wife and criticised his casting in the Fantastic Beasts film series.
Harry’s case against Associated Newspapers is scheduled for a year from now in 2026 and marks the final legal action in a series of lawsuits the prince has filed against British newspapers.
PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 is a UK constitutional law case in which an anonymised privacy injunction [n 1] was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people. [1]
The court ruled that the damages awarded under the earlier case at the English High Court represented an adequate remedy in respect of the breach of Mosley's rights. The case was widely followed and reported in the mainstream media, with The Daily Telegraph describing the case as "a significant victory for free speech". [12]
Constitutional law, Devolution in the UK: Providing postcode lists to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was not a "devolution issue" or capable of being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court refused to accept the application by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. [2]
The court ruled that section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 imposed a new threshold over the common law interpretation of defamation, being that the harm caused had to be serious. It was found that the damage to reputation of the individual in this case did not cause serious harm. [27] Samuels v Birmingham City Council [2019] UKSC 28: 12 June