Advertising Standards Authority v Robert Mitchell  EWHC 1469 (QB)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/1469.html Have you ever sent an email to the wrong person, realising only moments after sending it? Warby J considers the perils of such a situation, and how the court may step in if the receiving party refuses to undertake not to use the information. Background An investigating officer of the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”), Mr X, accidentally sent an email containing legal advice from a partner (Mr Rupert Earle) and from
Beecham House to premiere on Sunday
Beecham House, a new series set on the cusp of the 19th century in Delhi before the British ruled in that region, is due to premiere on Sunday 23rd June at 9pm on ITV. The drama depicts the fortunes of the residents of Beecham House, an imposing mansion surrounded by acres of exotic woods and pristine lawns. The family is headed by John Beecham, a former soldier with the East India Company who is determined to make the house his safe haven. Beecham House was co-created, writt
Spicer v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 1439 (QB)
In a meaning application the High Court (QB Division) held that an article’s headline, however defamatory, must be read in context, with the text of the article, in order to arrive at the natural and ordinary meaning. The judgment provides a useful exposition of the ‘bane and antidote’ principle. Background The article complained of in this libel action was published on the Police’s Met Website in January 2017, headed “Two guilty of killing a woman while racing their cars”.
Allen v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWHC 1235 (QB)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/1235.html [All numbers in square brackets refer to paragraphs in the judgment]. Background This libel action arose from two almost identical articles relating to the Grenfell Tower disaster which were published by the Times in hard copy and online on 1 July 2017. The print version of the article was headed ‘Grenfell cladding boss is a government adviser’, whilst the online version was textually identical bar a slight (irrelevant) v