��˾����ҹ����

View the related practice notes about Statement in open court

Privacy law—remedies

This Practice Note focuses on the remedies available in respect of misuse of private information (whether it be for an actual or threatened publication or for the method by which personal information has been obtained) and breach of confidence (in the context of the disclosure of personal information).Damages and an injunction are the most common remedies sought. However, since the law relating to misuse of private information/breach of confidence covers a wide range of factual situations, the courts will adopt a flexible approach to remedies. What this means is that, on the facts of one case, an injunction preventing the threatened disclosure of information will be the most important remedy to give effect to the claimant’s right of privacy, whereas, in another case, the defendant may have already made an unauthorised disclosure of the information and received a commercial benefit from doing so. In the latter case, the appropriate remedies may be damages or an order for an account of the profits, an injunction to restrain any further publication and...

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person—illustrative decisions

Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person—illustrative decisions The tables below provide examples of cases in which applications for anonymity of a person in civil litigation proceedings under CPR 39.2(4) have been considered by the courts. For ease of reference they are divided up into successful and unsuccessful applications. For guidance on the general principles that the courts apply when faced with an application for anonymity, see Practice Note: Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person. Examples of the court granting anonymity Case details and analysis Judgment date Summary of decision JWS v JZX [2024] EWHC 1345 (KB) 6 June 2024 This is an example of the court granting an order to anonymise the defendant (the claimant having already been granted anonymity) which involved the court balancing the defendant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against Article 10 (right to freedom of expression and the principle of open justice). The court considered that the ‘significant evidential documentary challenges to the Claimant's case’ tipped the balance in favour of the defendant’s...

View the related precedents about Statement in open court

Ireland—Letter of claim: newspaper report

This Precedent is drafted as a letter of claim and is designed to be sent to the editor of a newspaper that has published a defamatory report. For guidance on defamation, see Practice Notes: —Ireland—Defamation law—an overview of the Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland) —Lexology Panoramic: Defamation and Reputation Management—Ireland—Q&A guide Ask the following questions which reflect the underlying merits of a complaint: —is there clear evidence that the statements in question are false? Ensure you are in possession of all the facts prior to sending out a letter of claim —who is the subject of the defamatory material and is their business likely to be of interest to the public? The fact that a public figure has instructed lawyers in respect of allegedly defamatory comments may be as interesting to the public as the original statements and draw more attention to them. A letter of claim may be marked ‘not for publication’ but unless it contains obviously private or confidential information, little may be done to restrain its publication —has...

View the related q&as about Statement in open court

When the parties have agreed the terms of a joint statement which is to be read in open court, is it a requirement that the defendant attends the court when the statement is to be read out or is it acceptable for the statement to be read out without their attendance?

When the parties have agreed the terms of a joint statement which is to be read in open court, is it a requirement that the defendant attends the court when the statement is to be read out or is it acceptable for the statement to be read out without their attendance? Defences to defamation claims—offer of amends It is open to a defendant who is prepared to accept at an early stage of the proceedings (prior to service of a defence) that he or she has wrongly defamed the claimant to make an offer of amends under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996). By making such an offer, the defendant agrees to make a suitable correction and sufficient apology to the claimant and to pay appropriate compensation (if any is warranted) and costs as agreed between the parties or determined by the court. If the claimant accepts the offer, the case does not proceed to trial but to a hearing before a judge...

View the related News about Statement in open court

Simon Schofield awarded £90,000 in damages and an injunction in libel claim against online news website Politicalite (Schofield v Politicalite Ltd and another)

TMT analysis: This judgment addresses remedies following the granting of judgment in default to Simon Schofield, the award-winning theatrical producer, actor and creative director, against Politicalite Ltd, the publisher of an influential online news publication ‘Politicalite’. The article was published by Politicalite in September 2022 and written by Jordan Kendall (its Editor in Chief and the second defendant in the claim) with the headline ‘EXCLUSIVE: Phillip Schofield and best pal Simon “groomed” [X], claim Telly insiders’. X was a student of a theatre company run by Simon Schofield. Despite sharing the same name, Simon Schofield is no relation of Phillip Schofield, but the two are old friends. The judgment addresses the conduct of the defendant and the remedies that the court may consider appropriate to award in certain cases. It is an important reminder to individuals that pre-action correspondence can be disclosed before the court and, if it is demonstrative of a particular type of conduct (here, at times, malicious and threatening) that will be taken into account in the...

The importance of establishing the underlying ‘wrong’, proper evidence and disclosure in Norwich Pharmacal applications (Richard Davidoff v Google LLC)

TMT analysis: This case involves the applicants (including members of the Davidoff family and two companies that operate the Davidoff family property management business) (the Applicants) bringing an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order against the respondent, Google LLC, in an attempt to identify the authors of anonymous reviews posted on Trustpilot. The court held that Google LLC was not sufficiently ‘mixed up in the wrongdoing’ in order to be compelled to disclose the information sought by the Applicants. The judgment analyses the current authorities on what amounts to being ’mixed up’ in the wrongdoing which, as Mr Justice Nicklin admits, ‘are not perhaps as clear as they might be’. Perhaps more interesting and relevant for practitioners is the emphasis Nicklin J placed on sufficient evidence to establish the ‘wrong’ carried out against the Applicants, a pivotal element of a Norwich Pharmacal application. In this case, the Applicants asserted claims in defamation and malicious falsehood but advanced these arguments on a substantially inferential basis, which was largely considered to be...