COVID-19 update: Working remotely, 5RB continues in full operation during the Coronavirus lockdown. All of our barristers are able to attend hearings and meetings with clients via telephone or video conference software. Click here for further details.
Appeal - Defamation - Article 10 of the European Convention - Section 12, Human Rights Act 1998 - Settlement - Whether Judge below was correct to have refused application to lift a stay in the proceedings imposed by a Tomlin Order
Defamation - Libel - Foreign Parties - Settlement of Action by way of Tomlin Order - Whether contractual undertakings restricting freedom of expression had been breached - Whether contractual undertakings restricting freedom of expression should be coverted into an injunction - Whether an inquiry as to damages should be ordered - Applications for Derogations from Open Justice - Hearing in Private- Restrictions on Access to Papers
Defamation - libel - justification - cronyism - willing beneficiary - Chase level 2 meaning - reasonable grounds to suspect - what has to be proved - whether proof made out - abuse of process - disproportionate cost - damages
Libel - jockey - broadcast interview - allegations of deliberate non-trying - permission to amend defence - adding Reynolds defence - other defences - reporting privilege - comment - justification - mode of trial - preliminary issue - C was a senior jockey who sued D for libel over a broadcast interview which he argued meant that he was a corrut jockey who had repeatedly, for corrupt reasons, stopped horses from winning. The defences were privilege, honest comment and justificaiton. The court held that the trial of the issues raised should be by Judge alone, but that all the issues should be tried together.
Defamation - Libel - Costs - Defamation Proceedings Costs Management Scheme - Practice Direction 51D - Whether it is necessary or appropriate under the Scheme to refer a Master or Judge to settlement offers
Defamation - Libel - Defamatory meaning - CPR 53 PD 4.1 - Whether words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings pleaded in the Particulars of Claim - Whether words complained of are capable of bearing any meaning defamatory of the Claimant
Media Law - Defamation - Libel - Disclosure - CPR 31.22 - Corrective witness statement to explain change of stance - CPR 18 - Appeal from decision of Master whether to Order the Claimant to produce the original of his United States Security Card
Defamation – Libel – Strike out - Meaning - Malice – Damages claim – General loss of custom and business – Amendments – Special damages - Exemplary damages - CPR r.3.1 – Summary judgment – Whether real prospect of success – CPR Part 24.2
Defamation - Libel - Claim dismissed following trial of the action - Defence of justification upheld - Whether costs should follow the event - Whether costs should be assessed on standard or indemnity basis - Whether interest should be awarded - Whether Claimant should have permission to appeal
Defamation - libel - justification - permission to amend - whether words complained of were capable of Chase level 3 meaning - whether Defendant can rely on Claimant's non-disclosure of relevant documents and/or misrepresentation of their content - lies probative of guilt - admission by conduct
Defamation - Libel - Reynolds qualified privilege - application to strike out defence of privilege- alternatively for summary judgment - whether the law as to qualified privilege was in a state of flux
Defamation - libel - civil procedure - Conditional fee arrangements - Human Rights - Articles 6, 10 - justification - whether it was permissible to justify the meaning that the police suspected the claimant of involvement in terrorist offences
Human rights - Defamation - Libel - Unavailability of legal aid - Exclusion of evidence - Burden of proof - Costs - Injunction - Effective access to a court - Article 6, ECHR - Freedom of expression - Article 10, ECHR
Defamation - Libel - Striking Out - Defence - Justification - Basis on which it was proper to advance plea of justification - defences of justification and fair comment form part of the framework by which free speech is protected