Tag Archives: libel

Defamation/ Libel: Defamation claims up by 40% in 2017

Inforrm, the leading independent media law blog, reported last week that judicial statistics for 2017 show a 40% increase in the number of defamation claims issued.

Read more

Defamation take-down requests to Google

The Right to be Forgotten has been in the news again recently following the decision in NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (read our blog on that decision here), but Google will often voluntarily remove content from its search engine results on a variety of other grounds, including that the content is defamatory.

Read more

Martin Lewis to sue Facebook

Martin Lewis, the consumer campaigner, has announced that he intends to issue defamation proceedings against Facebook in respect of misleading advertisements bearing his name that have been published on the social media platform. It is claimed that many of the adverts show Martin Lewis’ face next to endorsements that he has not made.  These include adverts for binary trading schemes that are viewed as scams by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Read more

Supreme Court to hear appeal on “serious harm” threshold in defamation cases

The Supreme Court has granted the unsuccessful defendants in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1327 permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s rulings regarding the application of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013.

Read more

Harassment by publication: how private and/or defamatory material can be protected

In GYH v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 336, the claimant, a transgender woman who works as an escort, was granted an interim injunction to prevent, amongst other things, the publication of information which purported to relate to her private life.

Read more

Chairman of Oriental Fine Arts Academy of London wins libel claim over embezzlement/corruption slurs

Selvaratnam Suresh, an honorary chairman, trustee and co-founder of the Oriental Fine Arts Academy of London (‘OFAAL’) has succeeded in his libel claim against Abdul Samad, Amirthalingam Nagarajah and Kajananan Sathananthan, after the defendants agreed to retract their allegations, apologise and pay compensation and costs.  The first two defendants are parents of pupils at the West London Tamil School.  The third defendant is a former pupil and the president of the school’s alumni association.

Read more

Publish and be damned: the old adage applies equally to internet users

Websites and social media accounts have been, for some time now, the preferred platforms for those with an axe to grind to attack their opponents.  Disgruntled customers, ex-employees and jilted lovers number amongst those who believe the world wide web provides the best opportunity to criticise those who have dared to cross their path.

Read more

#MeToo, naming and shaming: a risky business?

“#MeToo”: Five letters that have been tweeted millions of times in the past month, and demonstrate the enormous power of social media and how it can bring about change for the good.  The feeling of solidarity is a cathartic experience for many who have been the victim of sexual abuse, harassment or other forms of coercive behaviour.  Beyond this, the reach of the hashtag is already challenging outdated social values and societal norms.

Read more

Brett Wilson LLP and its lawyers recommended in Legal 500 directory

Brett Wilson LLP has been ranked in the 2017 edition of the Legal 500 as a leading firm in the fields of Reputation Management, White Collar Crime/Fraud and General Crime.  The latest edition was published on 11 October 2017 and marks the sixth consecutive year that Brett Wilson LLP has featured in the directory.

Read more

Business as usual?  The Court of Appeal considers the threshold for bringing a libel claim in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd.

The long-awaited decision in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1334 has brought some badly-needed clarity and certainty to the law of libel, and it seems fair to say that reports of the death of the libel writ have been greatly exaggerated.  The decision interprets both the meaning of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 – “the serious harm” test – and determines the point at which a claim for libel crystallises.

Read more

Contact us

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message