header-logo header-logo

Libel & slander

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

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

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