header-logo header-logo

09 February 2024
Issue: 8058 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 9 February 2024

Defamation

Blake and another v Fox and another [2024] EWHC 146 (KB), [2024] All ER (D) 120 (Jan)

The King’s Bench Division ruled on reciprocal libel claims relating to some brief exchanges on the social media platform then known as Twitter. The defendant actor and leader of the Remain Party had called for a boycott of a supermarket over an employee diversity and inclusion policy. The claimants had responded by calling the defendant a racist, and he had then proceeded to call each of them a paedophile. Each of the parties argued that no ‘serious harm’ could have been attributed to their own tweet(s), and that the test in s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 had not been passed. The burden laid on the party who alleged defamation in each case to establish that the test had been passed and, if it had not, then that was the end of the matter. The court held, among other things, that: (i) the defendant’s labelling of the claimants as paedophiles was, on the evidence,

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll