UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about Defamation

Checklist for references

Checklist for references STOP PRESS: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published draft guidance on keeping employment records and recruitment and selection which were open for consultation until 5 March 2024, and has removed the employment practices code (first published in March 2022, and last updated in November 2011) and supplementary guidance from its employment information page. For more information, see Q&A: What is the status of the ICO employment practices code? and ICO removes employment practices code and related guidance from its Employment information guidance page, LNB News 15/12/2023 112. This Practice Note will be updated once the ICO draft guidance is finalised. This Checklist canvasses some of the common issues encountered when it comes to requesting or providing an employment reference. For further guidance on references generally, see Practice Note: References. For a template letter of reference from an employer to a prospective new employer concerning an existing or former employee, see Precedent: Letter—employee reference. The existing Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Employment...

Social media corporate policy—checklist

Social media corporate policy—checklist This Checklist is intended to be a guide for businesses considering drafting a social media policy and the practitioners advising them. Each policy will differ in order to deal with the individual needs of the business, particularly in regulated sectors such as financial services, law or accounting. At the outset, businesses should consider the objectives and purpose of a social media policy. The business should identify the potential risks of employees and other staff using social media so that the policy, when implemented, will be an effective tool in mitigating those risks. Social media covered by a corporate social media policy should include social networks, email groups, bulletin or message boards, chatrooms, listservs and blogs. Some well-known examples are Facebook, LinkedIn, Pinterest, YouTube, Instagram, Flickr and X. As social media technology is constantly evolving, the list of examples is intentionally not exhaustive. Why do you need a social media policy? Individuals use social media for both personal and professional purposes and the social media policy should...

View the related flowcharts about Defamation

Websites and the internet—issues to consider—flowchart

Websites and the internet—issues to consider—flowchart This is a Flowchart showing how to address regulatory and contractual issues when building or operating a website. It addresses domain name and intellectual property issues, e-commerce, distance selling and similar regulations, online advertising rules and data privacy. The Flowchart then references relevant contracts to develop or host websites or legal terms to include within websites. Finally, it also covers how to address disputes relate to websites, such as cybersquatting and online defamation. Step 1—overview Step 2—intellectual property and brand considerations Domain names and brand protection Other intellectual property rights Transferring rights in websites Practice Note: Domain names—background, registration and dispute resolution Practice Note: Intellectual property rights considerations for websites Practice Note: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) process Practice Note: Copyright―protectable works Practice Note: Licensing intellectual property rightsAssigning intellectual property rights Practice Note: Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) Practice Note: Copyright in databases and database right Precedent: Online brand protection—training materials Practice Note: UK...

View the related practice notes about Defamation

Defamation—practical aspects

This Practice Note deals with the practical aspects of bringing a defamation claim such as: identifying a defamatory statement; determining whether the statement is libel or slander; and the suitability of interim relief. It considers the impact of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) on claimants and defendants and includes tactics on the procedural aspects of a defamation action.Defamation Act 2013Before the implementation of the DA 2013, defamation actions acquired a reputation for technicality and disproportionate expense, largely because of the central focus on the meaning of defamatory statements. The government reacted to a groundswell of adverse media comment that English defamation law was too claimant-friendly by enacting DA 2013, which introduced a number of reforms making defamation a tortious action based equally on common law and statute, and abolished several common law defences through codification.Further readingYou may wish to refer to Duncan and Neill on Defamation (fifth edition, 2020) available subject to subscription. Was the statement defamatory and did it identify the claimant?At common law, a defamatory statement is...

Complaints—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared [Archived]

Complaints—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared [Archived] ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note contrasts the requirements in the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA’s) 2011 and 2019 regimes as well as wider requirements in relation to complaints. There is a separate Practice Note providing more detailed guidance on the SRA’s 2019 complaints requirements—see Practice Note: Complaints—law firms. Regulatory requirements in relation to complaints are contained in various places, including the 2019 Codes, the SRA Financial Services (Conduct of Business) Rules, the SRA Transparency Rules and the SRA Indemnity Rules. Applicable requirements also stem from the Legal Services Board (LSB). These are summarised in the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) Scheme Rules. SRA requirements in the 2019 Codes in relation to complaints specifically apply only when you are providing services to the public or a section of the public. The requirements in the 2019 Codes represent the bare bones of those in the 2011 Code. You will see in the tables below, however, that the pared-down requirements in the 2019 Codes...

View the related precedents about Defamation

Online brand protection—training materials

Online brand protection—training materials These training materials are template PowerPoint slides which show how businesses can protect their online brands. They include guidance upon protecting trade marks and domain names. It is intended that these slides will be used as a starting point for someone who needs to train others on brand protection. These slides can be amended as necessary to suit individual requirements, but will help the speaker by speeding up preparation times. The training materials are customisable. Click the link below to download the presentation. Contents • Terminology • The internet and key brand risks • Deciding on new branding • Managing an existing brand • Trade mark infringement and passing off actions: — Trade mark infringement — Passing off — Domain names — Keyword advertising — Objecting to other trade marks • Advertising practices • Defamation • Responding to a brand management crisis • Conclusion Purpose of slides/seminar The slides are intended for a general rather than specialist audience. It is anticipated...

Reply (defamation)

Reply (defamation) Claim No.:HQ [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST PARTIES: (1) [Insert full name of claimant/first claimant] (2) [[Insert full name of second claimant]]        [Claimant OR Claimants] and [Insert full name of defendant]        Defendant _____________________________________ REPLY _____________________________________ 1 The [Claimant joins OR Claimants join] issue with the Defendant on his Defence save for the admissions it contains and those averments therein which are expressly admitted below. Paragraph references are to the Defence. 2 The [Claimant denies OR Claimants deny OR that the words complained of in the meanings set out at paragraph 8.1 of the Defence are true. Without limitation to the generality of this denial as to the particulars of truth advanced to support those imputations, the [Claimant pleads OR Claimants plead] as follows: 2.1 [set out the claimant’s/claimants’ response to the Particulars of Truth set out by the defendant in his defence, admitting or denying as appropriate]. 3 It...

View the related q&as about Defamation

In a defamation claim, can a corporate entity claim damages for loss of reputation?

In a defamation claim, can a corporate entity claim damages for loss of reputation? In short, a corporate entity can bring a claim in defamation for damage to their corporate or business reputation as long as the damage has resulted in (or is likely to result in) serious financial loss. A corporate entity cannot recover damages for hurt feelings, because a corporate entity has no feelings to hurt: see Duncan and Neill on Defamation, Chapter 25 Damages, Damages to reputation, 25.07. As set out in our Practice Note: Defamation, all claims brought in relation to publications since 1 January 2014, following the implementation of Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), must satisfy a threshold test for what is defamatory, namely that publication of the statement ‘has caused or is likely to

A attacks B and causes B to sustain serious physical injuries. In terms of the civil cause(s) of action available, would the claimant’s claim be for damages for personal injury or alternatively damages in the tort of battery? Would there be any other civil remedies? Surely, a personal injury claim essentially is founded in the tort of negligence but A has not been negligent.

A attacks B and causes B to sustain serious physical injuries. In terms of the civil cause(s) of action available, would the claimant’s claim be for damages for personal injury or alternatively damages in the tort of battery? Would there be any other civil remedies? Surely, a personal injury claim essentially is founded in the tort of negligence but A has not been negligent. The issue here is between ‘a claim for personal injuries’, and ‘a claim in negligence or in battery’, which is itself a confusion between a form of damage (and its remedies) on the one hand, and a cause of action on the other. ‘Personal injury’ is not a tort—it is a sort of damage resulting from a tort, which gives rise to a legal right to a remedy. It is to be contrasted with other physical damage—or example, to property, and other forms of tortious interference with a person’s rights (for example, the damage to one’s reputation that results from the tort of...

View the related News about Defamation

Libel—serious harm and bad reputation (Bates v Rubython and BusinessF1 Magazine)

TMT analysis: In this libel case, the defendants offered no substantive defences and instead sought to demonstrate that the claimant had not suffered serious harm to his reputation caused by their publication (as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013)). The claim succeeded with damages, an injunction and an order under DA 2013, s 12 granted. The case contains valuable discussion of the requirements of pleading pre-existing bad reputation as a counter to a plea of serious harm. It also exemplifies a successful plea of serious harm to reputation in circumstances where the claimant relied entirely on inference to make out his case. The judgment ends with useful application of the principles relating to damages and other remedies in defamation claims. A very substantial award of £150,000 was made in this case. Hector Penny is a barrister at 5RB Chambers.

TMT weekly highlights—23 January 2025

Welcome to this week’s edition of the TMT weekly highlights: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from across the technology, media and telecoms sectors. These highlights focus on key topics including new technologies, software, cloud computing, internet, outsourcing, music, film & television, publishing, defamation and telecoms.