Pre-action Protocol for Defamation
Is designed to speed things
up apparently. It mentions
http://www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet23.jsp,
an advertsing prospectus.
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/litigation-go-in-as-pigs-come-out-as-sausage-meat/
Run time comment on a libel claim by comedians who allege that they knew
nothing about Pakistani Perverts in
Rotherham.
Defamation Act 2013 ex Wiki
Is there to prevent
abuse over trivia by corrupt lawyers and libel tourists. They have to prove
actual or probable serious harm.
QUOTE
The Defamation Act 2013 (c 26) is an Act of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom, which reformed
English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression
and the protection of reputation. It also comprised a response to
perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to
libel tourism and other inappropriate claims.
The Act changed existing criteria for a successful claim, by requiring claimants to show actual or probable serious harm (which for-profit bodies is restricted to serious financial loss), before suing for defamation in England or Wales, setting limits on geographical relevance, removing the previous presumption in favour of a trial by jury, and curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation). It also enhanced existing defences, by introducing a defence for website operators hosting user-generated content (provided they comply with a procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned or otherwise remove it), and introducing new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and 'publication on a matter of public interest' or privileged publications (including peer reviewed scientific journals), to replace the common law defences of justification, fair comment, and the Reynolds defence respectively. However, it did not quite codify defamation law into a single statute.[3][4]
The Defamation Act 2013 applies to
causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[5]
old libel law will therefore still apply to many 2014 - 2015 defamation
cases where the events complained of took place before commencement.
UNQUOTE
The old, bad law still applies in Ireland where it is open to abuse by Paisley.
See Private Eye 1391/13
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/internet-legal-developments-to-look-out-for-in-2014-graham-smith/
-
Internet Legal Developments For 2014
Some might be good.
ECHR Rules On Websites' Comments -
http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/oct/11/online-comments-websites-court-ruling-estonian
ECHR chooses to allege
that on line publishers are responsible for comments posted by outsiders.
Taking Action about Defamation
Reasonable overview. Lawyer marketing the product.
American Libel Law Is Dead
QUOTE
Gutnick v Dow Jones - Defamation on the Internet
QUOTE
The
Gutnick Case
The Gutnick conflict arose when, on 28 October
2000,
Dow published on its financial journal and news service entitled
Barron’s Online (Barron’s)[11]
an article, ‘Unholy Gains’, in which the author,
William Alpert
(Alpert), alleged irregularities in Gutnick’s business
dealings with
religious charities and with a convicted criminal, Nachum Goldberg.
Gutnick decided to sue Dow only in relation to that
part of the article which portrayed him as Goldberg’s
abettor. The
article, he claimed (its words, as well as the accompanying photograph,
showing him and Goldberg together), imputed that he “was
masquerading
as a reputable citizen when he was a tax evader who had laundered large
amounts of money through Goldberg, and bought his silence”.[12]
Significantly, too, Gutnick narrowed his claim to Victoria, his home
state, where the article could have been accessed by Barron’s
subscribers, including brokers and financial advisers[13]
– i.e. the circle of people in which his reputation was
likely to be
damaged by Alpert’s allegations. And – most
contentiously, it appears –
the plaintiff lodged his claim in a Victorian court.[14]
Supreme
Court of Victoria – 2001 Proceedings In Australia, an overseas defendant may –
by
entering a
conditional appearance – ask the court to decline to exercise
its
jurisdiction. That means that by appearing in the Supreme Court of
Victoria (VSC), Dow did not automatically submit to that jurisdiction.[15]
This is important, because, indeed, Barron’s publisher
undertook to
dispute Victorian jurisdiction, arguing that the online article was not
published in Victoria but in New Jersey, where Dow’s web
server was
located.[16]
Supported by affidavits submitted by its selected
experts, the defendant asserted that it had no control over the users
who might request to extract a particular article from its server.
However, in his decision made on 28 August 2001, Justice Hedigan
remarked that such an assertion was not “wholly
accurate”,
[17]
as Dow had – intentionally – programmed its
computers to ensure that
only password holders, whose accounts had been paid up, could access
its website. It was, therefore, not an innocent disseminator.
[18]
Since, under the common law, in all Australian jurisdictions, “defamatory matter is published in each place in which it is read, seen (…) heard” [19] and comprehended, Hedigan J concluded that Alpert’s article had been published in Victoria. Consequently, he found the State of Victoria to be an appropriate and convenient forum to try the dispute and to entertain the proceedings. [20]
Science Writer Wins Important Victory Against Bad Law In Libel Case [ 1
April 2010 ]
QUOTE
Science writer Simon Singh today
took a major step towards defeating a libel action brought against him by a
group of chiropractors. The Court of Appeal handed him the right to use the
defence of 'fair comment' over an opinion piece Mr Singh wrote in the Guardian
in April 2008 suggesting there was a lack of evidence for the claims some
chiropractors make on treating certain childhood conditions, including colic and
asthma. He was accused of defamation by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA),
which alleged that Mr Singh had in effect accused its leaders of knowingly
supporting bogus treatments.
In a preliminary ruling in the dispute at the High Court last May, Mr Justice Eady held that Mr Singh’s comments were factual assertions rather than expressions of opinion and, as such, he would have been forced to prove it was his assertion were true or use the defence of responsible journalism.
Today, however, the Lord Chief Justice Lord
Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled that Mr
Justice Eady had “erred in his approach”, and allowed Mr Singh’s appeal. The
result means he needs only to prove that it was reasonable for him to hold the
opinions he does, that the subject was in the public interest and they were
based on fact.
UNQUOTE
Private Eye does not like Eady J. They have crossed
his path too often. Nor did the very senior judges of the
Appeal Court, not in public at all events. English libel law is grossly
oppressive even with a reasonable judge.
Responsible Journalism
Lord Hoffman says that responsible journalism is a defence in Libel actions.
Eady J did not concur. See 1256/5
Invasion Of Privacy Costs Mirror £28 Million
QUOTE
More than £1 million in damages has been awarded to
celebrities including Paul Gascoigne and Sadie Frost over
phone-hacking by Mirror Group Newspapers. The ex-England footballer was awarded £188,250 in damages at
the High Court and actress Frost received £260,250. Lawyers for phone-hacking victims claimed today's payouts,
totalling around £1.2 million, were "unparalleled"..........
James Heath, of Atkins Thomson, said: "The judge found that
phone hacking by Mirror Group's newspapers was widespread,
institutionalised and long standing. He found there to be
intrusion into the private lives of the claimants, which ranged
from 'serious' to 'enormous'.
UNQUOTE
Justice comes at a price. It is a rich man's luxury. The lawyers
made far more out of this than the aggrieved.
Libel Law To Be Made Less Oppressive [ 13 May 2012 ]
QUOTE
A law to end ‘libel tourism’ and protect free speech will be published today. The Defamation Bill will shake up antiquated libel laws to prevent wealthy individuals and corporations – often based abroad – using courts here to silence critics. In recent years London has become the libel capital of the world. Critics say this is because existing regulations favour claimants and that the very high costs involved in defending a claim mean many publications are forced to settle out of court, even when they believe what they published was true. In an attempt to end trivial claims, future claimants will have to show that material has caused them ‘serious harm’...... Journalists will be allowed defences against defamation where they can show the material is based on ‘honest opinion’ or is in the public interest. And websites will be protected if they publish readers’ comments.
UNQUOTE
This is good news. The
1. Law Blog - WSJ.com : Law and the Blogosphere
"He began by saying that while there are few examples of libel lawsuits against ... at PBS picked up the story, along with The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, ..."
blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/04/28/law-and-the-blogosphere/2. Law Blog - WSJ.com : Big Time U.K. Libel Ruling (Not Just Because ...
"Big Time U.K. Libel Ruling (Not Just Because It Involves Us). Posted by Peter Lattman. wsj Britain’s top court sided with The Wall Street Journal Europe in ..."
blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/10/11/big-time-uk-libel-ruling-not-just-because-it-involve-us/3. Law lords give media shield against libel in landmark ruling ...
"Five law lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and quashed ..."
media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1920159,00.html4. House of Lords - Jameel and others (Respondents) v. Wall Street ...
"Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (Appellants). [2006] UKHL 44. LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL. My Lords,. 1. This appeal raises two questions on the law of libel. ..."
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd061011/jamee-1.htm5. Court voids Wall Street Journal libel verdict - Business ...
"Britain's top court on Wednesday overturned a Saudi businessman's libel victory over The Wall Street Journal in connection with articles about ..."
www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/11/business/wsj.php6. The top business news and economy articles from Yahoo! News
"... about a possible merger with Barclays , the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. ... Calif. farm sues Taco Bell for libel AP - Fri Mar 23, 5:22 AM ET ..."
news.yahoo.com/i/749
"... parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, ..."
www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=1100073818. Libel and Slander - News - Times Topics - The New York Times ...
"Media column examines record $222.7 million libel award against Dow Jones & Co for article in its Wall Street Journal about MMAR Group Inc; ..."
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/l/libel_and_slander/index.html?query=WALL%20STREET%20JOURNAL&field=org&match=exact9. Libel and Slander - News - Times Topics - The New York Times ...
"Libel and Slander - Narrowed by 'WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE' RSS feed Libel and Slander - Narrowed by 'WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE' ..."
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/l/libel_and_slander/index.html?query=WALL%20STREET%20JOURNAL%20EUROPE&field=org&match=exact10. AOL sides with anonymous posters | Tech News on ZDNet
"By Aaron Elstein, The Wall Street Journal Online ... been filed by individuals and companies against message-board posters alleging libel and defamation. ..."
news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-528630.html11. Finers wins landmark libel ruling for Wall Street Journal - 11 ...
"Finers Stephens Innocent and Doughty Street Chambers have won a landmark judgment in the House of Lords that redefines the Reynolds defence against libel ..."
www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=122350&d=122&h=24&f=4612. The Scientology Problem - Wall Street Journal March 25, 1997
"Wall Street Journal logo The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition ... In 1996, a judge threw out the last count of the church's libel suit against Time, ..."
www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/WSJ-ScienProblem032597.html13. Jameel and Wall Street Journal Europe (Court of Appeal) - Press ...
"The Court of Appeal has today upheld awards of libel damages of £30000 to Mohammed ... The Wall Street Journal Europe's appeal against the 19 December 2003 ..."
www.carter-ruck.com/recentwork/Jameel030205.html14. High Court in Britain Loosens Strict Libel Law - New York Times
"6, 2002, in The Wall Street Journal and in its European edition, ... Under British libel law, newspapers being sued are required to prove the truth of the ..."
www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/world/europe/12britain.html?ex=1318305600&en=0c546f1861dd77a3&ei=5088&partner=15. Adrian Monck online - News on the News Business
"But today my university, City, is hosting a law seminar with the journalists behind the Wall Street Journal libel win that has changed our libel laws for ..."
adrianmonck.blogspot.com/search/label/Wall%20Street%20Journal%20Europe16. Techdirt: Can Anyone Sue Any Online Publisher For Libel In The UK?
"In this case, a Saudi Arabian businessman sued the Wall Street Journal over an ... he nor the WSJ are in London, the UK has much stricter libel laws. ..."
www.techdirt.com/articles/20050214/0051232.shtml17. Media Entertainment Lawyers:: Bulletin Jameel Wall Street Journal ...
"Media Entertainment Lawyers Jameel Wall Street Journal Europe House of Lords. ... company in that group, and its president Mohammed Jameel, sued for libel. ..."
www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/cxfJameelResponsibleJournalism.aspx18. Wall St Journal's online libel win brings 'much-needed clarity ...
"Judges at the appeal court in London yesterday threw out a libel action against the Wall Street Journal's online publication because only five people in ..."
business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1405498,00.html19. What exactly is the Wall Street Journal trying to say? - By Jack ...
"The Wall Street Journal's opening coverage of the corporate shake-up at ... out and writing anything that 1) they can't prove and 2) invites a libel suit. ..."
www.slate.com/id/2158491/pagenum/all/20. Informed Comment
"This is day three since John Fund of the Wall Street Journal did a ... that will make WSJ responsible is being kicked in the teeth with a tort for libel. ..."
www.juancole.com/2006/04/blogger-david-versus-wsj-goliath-this.html
Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home PageUpdated on 26/12/2015 10:18