header-logo header-logo

Practice

12 June 2015
Issue: 7656 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

OPO (A Child by BHM his litigation friend) v MLA and another [2014] EWHC 2468 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 23 (Jun)

The claimant, through his mother as litigation friend applied for an injunction to restrain the first defendant father and the second defendant publisher from publishing a book about the first defendant’s experiences of being sexually abused as a child and his subsequent battles with mental illness. The Queen’s Bench Division dismissed the application on the basis, amongst others, that under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a claim by a child seeking to restrain his father from talking about his (the father’s) life largely before the child was born was misconceived.

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll