×

Court: Chancery Division

Evicted tenants privacy rights under ECHR, art 8 outweighed Channel 5’s art 10 rights

Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC 298 (Ch)

The claimant tenants had had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of certain information included in an observational documentary programme (“Can’t Pay, We’ll Take It Away”) aired by Channel 5 which showed edited footage of their eviction from their rental home, following the execution of a writ of possession. In allowing the claim, the […]

Court declines application by the BBC to transfer claim from the Chancery Division to the Media and Communications List

Appleby Global Group LLC v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2018] EWHC 104 (Ch)

Appleby issued a claim form in the High Court on 4 Dec 2017 against the defendants, claiming damages and a permanent injunction for breach of confidence. The claim form was issued in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales and allocated to the Business List (ChD). This hearing considered an application by the […]

Court extends wide-ranging injunction in favour of fracking firm

Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch)

This was a challenge to an interim injunction granted to INEOS, a large fracking company, in September 2017, on an ex parte, quia timet basis, preventing “persons unknown” from protesting at various planned fracking sites around the country and against INEOS and its suppliers. The Court renewed, subject to amendments, most of the injunctions previously […]

BBC required to disclose information on journalistic source

Sir Cliff Richard OBE v BBC & Anor [2017] EWHC 1291 (Ch)

The claimant sought a Part 18 request however the BBC wished to decline this as it risked exposing a journalistic source, or otherwise required the disclosure of information about a source which it ought not to have to provide. The claimant’s application succeeded.

Claimant with settled privacy claim was entitled to read statement in open court

Webb v Lewis Silkin LLP [2016] EWHC 1225 (Ch)

The court held that the claimant was entitled to read out her statement in open court, subject to court approval of the content, where privacy, rather than defamation proceedings, had been settled. The court would take a non-interventionist approach in allowing the claimant to say what she wanted to say, only interfering if a party’s case or the nature of the settlement was misrepresented. Permission to appeal granted. Lorna Skinner was involved in this case.