UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about Libel

Issues to consider when completing costs budget—checklist

Issues to consider when completing costs budget—checklist This Checklist considers various issues which may arise when completing a costs budget also known as Precedent H. It takes the form of questions and answers. It should be remembered when completing a costs budget that costs involved in a case will vary depending on the specific circumstances of that case and the issues raised below are, therefore, generic. A link is also provided to a fully interactive Precedent H. General comments Question Response When is there a requirement to file and exchange a costs budget? A costs budget must be completed, filed with the court and served on the other parties in the proceedings unless proceedings are excluded from the costs budgeting rules. Where it is excluded, a costs budget need not be completed unless the court orders otherwise eg the value of the claim is equal or more than £10m. For information, see Practice Note: Costs management and costs budgeting—general principles. Is there a time limit for filing the costs...

View the related practice notes about Libel

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...

Malicious falsehood

Malicious falsehood This Practice Note provides an introduction to the tort of malicious falsehood. Unlike a claim for defamation, there is no requirement in a claim for malicious falsehood to prove that the statement complained of is defamatory. Instead, the claimant must prove that: the defendant has published a statement that is untrue; the statement was published maliciously; and, the statement has caused actual pecuniary damage, or falls within the provisions of section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952 (DA 1952). The tort of malicious falsehood is governed by a mixture of statute and common law. The relevant statutory law is contained in DA 1952. The Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) contains no provisions relevant to the law of malicious falsehood. Malicious or injurious falsehood (sometimes referred to confusingly as 'trade libel') is not concerned with reputation. It is a separate tort to defamation, which is concerned with the publication of falsehoods which cause or are likely to cause financial damage. Unlike establishing a cause of action in...

View the related precedents about Libel

Defamation—training materials

Defamation—training materials These training materials consist of template PowerPoint slides that can be used as the basis of one or more training seminars on defamation law. The training materials reflect the requirements of the Defamation Act 2013 and topics covered include: the distinction between libel and slander; the elements of a defamation claim; damage to reputation and serious harm; publication; defences and remedies. It is anticipated that those providing training will use these slides as a helpful starting point for their presentations and then amend them accordingly to reflect their particular circumstances. The training materials may be customised. Click the link below to download the training presentation. Contents • What is defamation? • Distinction between libel and slander • Elements of a defamation claim • A defamatory statement • Damage to reputation and serious harm • The statement must refer to the claimant • What is publication and who is responsible? • Defences—truth • Defences—honest comment • Defences—absolute privilege • Defences—qualified privilege •...

Ireland—Policy—internet, email and communications

General This Precedent is an internal-facing policy for an employer’s use in relation to employees, other workers and contractors, dealing with the use and monitoring of email, telephone, internet and other electronic communications systems, networks and equipment. It is designed for an employer to include in a staff handbook or use as a stand-alone policy. This material considers the EU GDPR regime, and legislative links are to Regulation (EU) 2016/679, EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR), except where expressly stated otherwise. This Precedent has been drafted to take account of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, EU GDPR and DPA 2018 (IRL). For a basic, short-form policy, which may be more suitable for a small or medium-sized employer which does not have complex IT systems, see Precedent: Ireland—Policy—internet, email and communications (short form). This Precedent does not cover issues specifically relating to social media. See instead Precedent: Ireland—Policy—social media. An employer may wish to deal with social media and internet, email and communications together, in which case the relevant provisions from the...

View the related q&as about Libel

What guidance is there on the calculation of damages for loss of reputation?

What guidance is there on the calculation of damages for loss of reputation? The following Practice Notes set out guidance on the assessment of damages in a defamation claim, including damages relating to loss of reputation: • Defamation—practical aspects (see section on Defamation—practical aspects—Remedies) • Defamation (see section on Defamation—Damages) For further reading on assessing damages for injury to reputation in defamation cases, see the Commentary: Damage to reputation: Duncan and Neill on Defamation [25.07]. The following Practice Note sets out guidance on the assessment of damages

What are the risks of an organisation keeping an internal list of blacklisted companies and/or individuals with whom it does not wish to do business on the basis of information received from third parties or from its own research?

What are the risks of an organisation keeping an internal list of blacklisted companies and/or individuals with whom it does not wish to do business on the basis of information received from third parties or from its own research? In answering this Q&A, we have limited our research to cover data protection, defamation, restrictive agreements in competition law and the Employment Relations Act  1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/493. In conducting our research we have assumed that the organisation is not a public authority or otherwise subject to any public procurement regime. Data protection If the information within the list relates to a living individual, the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA 1998) may apply. The DPA 1998, governs the processing of personal data in the UK and it obliges those handling such data to comply with eight data protection principles. For more information, see Practice Note: Data protection—background and key definitions and in particular the sections on Data, Personal data, Processing and Relevant filing system. If...

View the related News about Libel

Transactions defrauding creditors—section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Malik v Messalti)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A transaction may be impugned under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) if it was done for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors, even if the transferor had no current creditors and contemplated only future hypothetical creditors at the time of the transaction. The focus is on the ‘purpose’ of the transaction, and not on ‘the degree of knowledge that a transferor has of the persons who are making, or may make, claims against him’. In this case, the appellant had disposed of a 50% beneficial share in a property at a time when he had no creditors (and a number of years before his liability to the respondent arose), but when he intended to engage on a course of litigation which could (and ultimately did) lead to costs awards against him. The prohibited purpose was established, and the transfer was set aside. Written by Alex Peplow, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

TMT weekly highlights—9 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.