Cases

Sunderland Housing Company & another v Baines & others

Comment

This decision, although ex tempore, is interesting for 2 reasons. The Court distinguished Bonnard v Perryman. It held that in light of the art 8 and art 10 balancing act that the Courts are now required to conduct it is not enough for a Defendant to merely assert an intention to justify where a Claimant provides evidence that the words are untrue. There is a greater onus on Defendants to demonstrate what allegations they intend to justify and be prepared to back them with a statement of truth.

Second, an injunction was granted under the DPA because D1 was held not to be a registered processor. In Mahmood v Galloway [2006] EWHC 1286 (QB), a case not cited to the Court, Mitting J did not consider injunctive relief was available under the DPA.

5RB’s Adam Speker acted for D2 and D4.

Areas of work

Data Protection
Defamation
Harassment
Human Rights
Injunctive Relief
Media Law

Also