header-logo header-logo

Defamation—Procedure

10 May 2013
Issue: 7559 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Vaughan v Lewisham Borough Council and others [2013] EWHC 795 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 226 (Apr)

It was settled law that parties to litigation should generally be free to prepare for it by taking such steps without the interference of an injunction, or that statements and publications in the course of defending proceedings were likely to be protected by absolute privilege, and that part of the purpose of that defence was to afford protection to those involved in litigation from even the risk of proceedings for defamation in matters directly relating to their conduct of that litigation. An interim injunction would not generally be granted in proceedings for defamation where a defendant intended to rely on a substantive defence.

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll