Changes to the Editors’ Code
“Critics of current press self-regulation may feel it is on its way out but editors are clearly determined to save it from destruction.”
In light of growing concern regarding the practices of the British press, significant amendments to the Editors’ Code of Practice, to which British newspapers and magazines voluntarily subscribe to and which is enforced by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), took effect from 1 January 2012. Continue reading
Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions publishes recommendations: new media must be accountable to the law
On 27 March 2012 the parliamentary Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions published its report. The Committee was asked to consider how best to strike a balance between rights to privacy and freedom of expression in the wake of the furore over so-called “super injunctions”. The courts, the Committee concluded, were now getting the balance about right. The problem still was that information protected by an injunction was readily being published elsewhere, in particular, online. Continue reading
Flood-v- Times Newspapers Limited: Supreme Court rules report is protected by Reynolds privilege and gives guidance on what journalists must do to verify allegations.
On 21 March the Supreme Court handed down a long-awaited judgment, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstating the finding of the trial judge Mr Justice Tugendhat that a report published in the Times on 2 June 2006 was protected by Reynolds privilege. As is always the case, the decision was fact-sensitive, and, as Lord Phillips pointed out, the case was an illustration yet again of the inherent complexity of the law of libel and the importance of identifying the meaning of the article.
Defamation Bill – Progress Report
The Report of the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill (October 2011) identified a number of areas where it considered greater clarity was required. For the most part, the Government in its Response (February 2012) has accepted the recommendations made.
There remain, however, a number of areas where the effect that the proposed changes of the law will have in practice remains unclear. In several instances, the Government proposes “to consider further” points raised by the Joint Committee. These include matters such as “reportage” (the repetition of allegations made by others), how “peer-reviewed” papers and “public archive” material may be defined so as to be afforded the protection of statutory qualified privilege, the liability of “secondary publishers” such as booksellers, and the thorny topic of “publication on the internet”. As ever, the devil may lie in the detail, for which we shall have to wait. Continue reading
Interest Rate Swap Claims Update
The hearing which took place in Leeds Mercantile Court before Christmas, and the expected judgment, attracted considerable interest, not just within the legal community but also among the many thousands of business owners who find themselves in a similar position to the Claimants in that action.
The reason this relatively small claim was potentially very significant is because it was the first hearing of a claim against a UK bank regarding the misselling of an interest rate swap. Tens of thousands of these products were sold to small and medium size businesses byUKbanks in recent years and have brought many of those businesses to their knees. Continue reading
“No-Win, No-Fee” Reforms Delayed
The Ministry of Justice has this week announced that the implementation of its controversial reforms to “no win, no fee” (conditional fee) agreements will be deferred by six months to April 2013.
The reforms, which appear within part two of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, currently at the committee stage in the House of Lords, were expected to be implemented in October this year, and the delay follows one previously announced at the end of last year to the legal aid reforms in part one of the Bill.
Continue reading
No-Win, No-Fee – No More?
In 1999, changes to the rules on litigation funding opened up the possibility of bringing a wide range of cases under Conditional Fee Agreements (or ‘no-win, no-fee agreements’ as they are colloquially known). At a time of legal aid cuts, the changes were intended to ensure access to justice for all; not just for the wealthy.
Carter-Ruck was one of the firms which pioneered a CFA scheme which over the years has allowed us to act for hundreds of litigants who would not otherwise have been able to afford to bring an action.
2011 Media Law Round-Up
This year has been an extraordinary one for media lawyers, when the balance between privacy rights and freedom of expression has swung wildly from one side to the other. First the furore over so-called “super-injunctions”, when celebrities were vilified for exercising their privacy rights. The sovereignty of parliament and the courts clashed as public figures who had obtained privacy injunctions were named and shamed by parliamentarians protected by the cloak of privilege. Twitter users named celebrities who had “gagging” orders, leading the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge to warn that modern technology was “out of control” and the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to say the situation was “bordering on farce”. The Attorney General warned that people who use Twitter to breach privacy injunctions could face legal action for contempt of court. Continue reading
Berezovsky Court Victory
A decision of the Court of Appeal on 15 December 2011 finally brought to an end one of the most fascinating libel cases in recent years. The case, concerning a Russian State television broadcast on the RTR satellite channel about the murder in November 2006 of Alexander Litvinenko, had all the hallmarks of a cold war thriller.
Boris Berezovsky, represented by Carter-Ruck, won £150,000 libel damages against Vladimir Terluk in February 2010; the appeal, which included an attempt to introduce evidence from Andrei Lugovoy, the man wanted by the British authorities for the murder, failed on every count. Continue reading
Reading the Riot Act…
The London riots dominated the news agenda in August. Victims included not just those whose homes and businesses were reprehensibly attacked but also victims of the media coverage itself.
Carter-Ruck represented Bath University undergraduate Merlin O’Doherty-Alb, who had inadvertently become caught up in the troubles when the police charged at a crowd in Camden shortly after he arrived there. A photograph of a street in Camden which included Mr O’Doherty Alb was used by The Independent to illustrate one of its articles about the riots, giving the false impression that Mr O’Doherty-Alb had been a participant in the violence. Continue reading
