header-logo header-logo

20 January 2017 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 7730 / Categories: Features , Media
printer mail-detail

Broadcast news

nlj_7730_aamodt_

Athelstane Aamodt provides a media law update

  • ​Ofcom announces its intention to end its “major parties” list; broadcasters given more freedom.

  • Wade v British Sky Broadcasting Limited : The Court of Appeal deals with the rare instance of a television format case.

Ofcom (the Office of Communications, ie the media regulator in the UK) has published a consultation paper (10 November 2016) that makes two important proposals:

i. Larger parties

Ofcom’s list of larger political parties varies depending on which part of the UK one is considering, but very broadly the Ofcom list includes the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, and the SNP, and these parties must be given “due weight”. Ofcom is proposing to cease using the large party definition and to give broadcasters editorial freedom to use their own information and judgment on this issue. To understand why this will matter, it is necessary to look at the rules governing political advertising.

In the UK wall-to-wall political advertising on television and radio is (mercifully) prohibited. Sections 319(2)(g) and 321(2) of the Communications

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll