header-logo header-logo

13 July 2017
Issue: 7754 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Libel & slander

Guise v Shah [2017] EWHC 1689 (QB), [2017] All ER (D) 31 (Jul)

The claimant was entitled to damages for libel and harassment by the defendant in publishing a website and sending a person to his home. However, the Queen’s Bench Division, held that neither party was entitled to damages for breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 by the other, as the judgment provided a sufficient record of the inaccuracies and there was no evidence of distress.

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Sophie Charlton of Vardags in London has been announced as the latest winner of AlphaBiolabs’ Giving Back initiative, with her nomination directing a donation to Reunite International
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
back-to-top-scroll