Max Mosley’s continuing attempts to force newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives have finally reached the end of the line – at least in the courts.
In May 2011 he applied to the European Court of Human Rights to make it obligatory for the press to notify individuals concerned about stories that would affect their privacy. The court ruled that the guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights could not be restricted in this way.
He then appealed to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. Last week (27 September 2011) a five panel court refused to reconsider the earlier ruling, holding that the ECHR’s decision was final.
Max Mosley says that his fight is not over. Whilst he may have reached the end of the road in the courts, he is now pinning his hopes on government committees and inquiries for a safeguard to privacy. Having taken his battle so far in the courts without success it is difficult to imagine that any other route could successfully side step the ruling of the ECHR.
Posted by Paula Dumbill, who specialises in non-contentious intellectual property, particularly trade marks and copyright, advising in particular on IP exploitation and collaboration agreements and trade mark portfolio management.
Paula Dumbill
0115 976 6059
pdumbill@brownejacobson.com
Comment must be “honest” – it doesn’t have to be “fair”
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010In a significant development to defamation law, the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph has clarified the defence of fair comment (also renaming it “honest comment”).
It is not necessary for a publisher to have identified the matters on which comment is based in sufficient detail to enable a reader to judge for themselves whether the comment is well founded. Instead, an honest comment ”must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based” so that “the reader can understand what the comment is about and the commentator can, if challenged, explain…”. However, a defendant is not permitted to get support from facts that were not referred to by the comment, or facts that the defendant did not know when he made his comment.
This clarification allies the defence more closely with the realities of publication on the internet, in editorials and in blogs, and makes a little progress towards the more robust reform position currently proposed in the Defamation Bill. The ruling will please publishers and proponents of free speech – but on the other hand, it might make the judicial process for persons defamed in unbalanced attacks more difficult.
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, Brands, defamation, defamation law, fair comment, honest comment, litigation, media, Supreme Court
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property, Litigation | 2 Comments »