Skip to main content

All posts


7.08.18

Clearing your name: the devil is in the detail

Statistically, most people charged with criminal offences are guilty as charged. In fact, the vast majority either plead ‘guilty’ of their own volition, or are found guilty at trial and are sentenced. Quite apart from the sentencing, there are rules about how long those convictions remain ‘live’ (meaning they must be disclosed to potential employers)….

Read more

28.07.18

The new test for dishonesty: the impact of Ivey v Genting Casinos

Last year’s Supreme Court judgment in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, a civil claim, shocked many criminal law practitioners as it formulated a new test for determining the element of ‘dishonesty’ for use in both civil and criminal Proceedings. Prior to Ivey the case of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 had been widely recognised by…

Read more

26.03.18

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. Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 states that a statement is not defamatory unless it is publication…

Read more

26.09.16

Mirror's defence reinstated by Court of Appeal in Danny Simpson libel and defamation case

Background The Claimant is a Premier League footballer and his claim concerns an article published in the Daily Mirror on 16 November 2012. The article was a story about the Claimant’s relationships with his long-term partner Stephanie Ward, and the celebrity former X-Factor judge, Tulisa Contostavlos, with whom the Claimant had a relationship between November 2012 and…

Read more

18.07.16

Appeal in Google v Vidal-Hall withdrawn

Google has withdrawn its appeal to the Supreme Court in  Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311.  Therefore the landmark Court of Appeal decision, discussed here on this blog, that damages can be awarded under the Data Protection Act 1998 for distress and anxiety, even if no financial loss suffered, will stand as good law. Google had been seeking…

Read more

19.05.16

Supreme Court rules celebrity threesome privacy injunction to stay in force

In the long-running saga of PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 the Supreme Court has ruled by 4-1 in favour of maintaining a privacy injunction through until trial.  The injunction was originally granted by the Court of Appeal on 22 January 2016.  It prevents the publication of a story concerning an anonymous…

Read more

12.04.16

Court of Appeal grants "celebrity threesome" privacy injunction and then discharges it

The Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal to discharge a non-disclosure injunction it granted itself earlier this year.  Until the Supreme Court has reached its decision the injunction in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd – the “celebrity threesome gagging order” – will remain in force. As with most privacy…

Read more

23.03.16

Privacy law: Supreme Court refuses Mirror permission to appeal phone hacking damages

The country’s highest court has refused MGN Limited permission to appeal the decision in Representative Claimants -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 – the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the appropriate level of damages in eight phone-hacking ‘test cases’.  This decision itself was an unsuccessful appeal by MGN against the High Court decision in Gulatti & Ors v…

Read more

5.11.15

Supreme Court holds that use of a loan facility can amount to a breach of freezing injunction

In JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2015] UKSC 64 the Supreme Court considered whether the proceeds of loans fell within the definition of assets restrained by a freezing injunction. The decision arises in long-running litigation instigated by the Claimant bank against its former chairman for the misappropriation of funds. The Claimant bank had obtained judgments…

Read more

28.08.14

Enforcing confiscation beyond benefit disproportionate rules Supreme Court

In the conjoined appeals in the cases of Ahmad and another and Fields and others [2014] UKSC 36 the Supreme Court heard submissions from a stellar array of counsel. Tim Owen QC and Andrew Bodnar from Matrix appeared on behalf of Fields, Andrew Mitchell QC and Kennedy Talbot from 33 Chancery Lane appeared on behalf…

Read more

Legal Disclaimer

Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.

Cookies are used to personalise this website for you and to analyse how the website is being used. You give us your permission to do this by clicking the “agree” button or by continuing to use the website having received this notification. You can find further information on cookies in our cookie policy.