header-logo header-logo

Defamation not star attraction

02 September 2011
Issue: 7479 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Celebrities turn their backs on defamation in favour of superinjunctions

Privacy injunctions have taken over from defamation actions as the legal route of choice for celebrities seeking to prevent potentially damaging stories from being published.

Only nine celebrities—including Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lily Allen and Boy George—sued for defamation in 2010/11, a fall of 59% from 22 in 2009/10, according to research by Sweet & Maxwell.

By contrast, the past year has seen the courts grappling with a slew of controversial “superinjunctions”.

Korieh Duodu, media law solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard, said: “The increased use of anonymity orders in privacy claims has enabled well known individuals to prevent anything being published at all.

“This will in some cases prevent the need for the individual to sue for libel after the event.”

However, businesses are increasingly suing for defamation to protect their reputation against complaints from individuals and customers.

There were five defamation cases brought by businesses in 2009/10, but this number trebled to 16 this year.

Defamation claims arising from social media communications such as Facebook and Twitter are also on the rise, and court cases where the defamatory comments were made online more than doubled last year to 16 from seven.

Duodu said journalists often source news from social media platforms, increasing the risk that content that is defamatory or in breach of privacy rights can spiral into a national news story.

“People who find themselves damaged on social media sites can often find it time-consuming and difficult to have the offending material removed, because many platform providers do not accept responsibility for their users content,” he said.

“Such is the speed at which information travels through social networks that one unchecked comment can spread into the mainstream media within minutes, which can cause irreparable damage to the subject who has been wronged.”

He called for “greater accountability of the providers of user generated content”, adding: “This ought to have been a focus of the proposed Defamation Bill currently being debated.”

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll