header-logo header-logo

27 October 2017
Issue: 7767 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Press & printing

R (on the application of News Media Association) v Press Recognition Panel [2017] EWHC 2527 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 69 (Oct)

The defendant Press Recognition Panel (the PRP) had not erred in its decision to grant recognition to the interested party, which regulated number of small or smaller publishers. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claimant News Media Association’s application for judicial review, held that the PRP had not misinterpreted or misapplied the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press 2013, in particular, with respect to IMPRESS’s de minimus support, third-party funding, independence and impartiality.

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

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll