L3 UNIT 4: Civil Courts of England and Wales

Exercise 2: p. 46

Text 1: Flood (Respondent) v Times Newspapers Limited (Appellant) [2012] UKSC 11

The matter at hand is a case of libel involving the publisher of The Times and a Detective Sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Extradition Unit.

(Note that libel cases are tried by jury.)

In response to allegations by the publisher of The Times (in an article) that he may have taken advantage of his position as Detective Sergeant to disclose confidential extradition information to a security firm (a third party) in exchange for money, the (aforementioned) Police Officer (i.e. the claimant) brought / issued a claim for libel (against the journalist, i.e. the respondent).

In first instance the High Court (in all likelihood the Queen’s Bench Division) found that the journalist was justified in publishing his article pursuant to the Reynolds privilege which protects journalists whenever the public interest is at stake.

The Police Officer appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the High Court’s finding.

In turn, the Journalist (being at this stage of the procedure “the appellant”) petitioned the Supreme Court which unanimously allowed the appeal.

Holding that the journalist was indeed allowed to base his defence on the Reynolds privilege (/to resort to the Reynolds privilege for his defence), reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Preliminary issue (preliminary point of law): In civil proceedings, an issue ordered to be tried before the main trial of the case. An order for the trial of a preliminary issue may be made by the court if the preliminary issue (which may be a question of law) will be decisive or potentially decisive in the case. (Under Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules the court has the power to dismiss or give judgement on a claim after a decision on a preliminary issue)

Text 3: The Rugby Football Union (Respondent) v Consolidated Information Services Limited (Formerly Viagogo Limited)

This case concerning a breach of contract involves the RFU and Viagogo Limited (i.e. the litigants).

In order to enhance its popularity, the Rugby Football Union allocates tickets to clubs, schools, or referee societies which in turn sell those tickets to their members and to the public.

The terms of the contract specify that the tickets remain at all times the property of the RFU and that clubs are only entitled to resell these tickets at face value.  

Such clubs resort to ticket re-sale websites, such as Viagogo, enabling buyers to purchase those tickets, in return for a cut (a percentage) of the price of the ticket.

It came to the attention of the RFU, however, that certain tickets were sold at a price exceeding by a large amount the original price of the ticket.

As Viagogo refused to disclose the identity of sellers using its website, the RFU (the claimant) brought a claim against Viagogo (issued proceedings against Viagogo – the respondent) to protect its policy in relation to tickets.

Given the considerable amount of money at stake, the case in first instance was heard by the High Court.

The Court found that, the RFU was entitled to know the identity of the sellers having committed a breach of contract so it could obtain redress and consequently granted an order (Norwich Pharmacal order) demanding that Viagogo disclose / reveal the identity of such sellers.

On appeal Viagogo claimed that the order issued by the High Court represented a disproportionate infringement on the rights of potential wrongdoers (i.e. the clubs which used the website) as protected by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the protection of personal data.

The Court of Appeal (civil division) upheld the High Court decision. It found that there being no other way for the RFU to have access to the identity of wrongdoers to obtain redress, the High Court Norwich Pharmacal order was justified and that the interference with the personal data rights of sellers was proportionate to the claim of the RFU.

Viagogo then petitioned the Supreme Court, which unanimously dismissed the appeal. 

Exercise 1 (p. 42) : 

Complete the following sentences. Write only one sentence

1- While a civil action encompasses any dispute raised between a claimant against a defendant, 

criminal actions are launched by the Crown Prosecution Service which prosecutes one or 

several defendants for an alleged criminal offence. 

2- Unlike slander which is made orally, libel is construed as a permanent form of defamation, 

whether it be written in the press and on a website or expressed in works of art. 

3- Divisional courts have appellate jurisdictions over cases heard in county courts, and 

sometimes magistrates’ courts, and are present in each of the three branches of the High 

Court of Justice. 

4- In order to avoid a trial, parties to a civil litigation are usually strongly advised to settle their 

disputes through ADR or arbitration. 

5- Multi-track cases refer to complex cases which are usually allocated to the High Court of 

Justice. 

Grammar (p. 50-51):

1-Complete the following phrases with the right preposition: 

1- To be liable FOR something 

2- To claim damages FOR something 

3- To entitled TO compensation 

4- To bring a case AGAINST someone

5- To fine someone FOR something 

6- To sue FOR an injunction 

2- Find the missing prepositions in the following text: 

Inside justice: London Rent Assessment Panel 

Samir Jeraj observes an independent panel settle private rental disputes, including a rare case of a flat with 

'fair rent' controls. Guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 October 2012 16.11 GMT 

I arrive at the London Rent Assessment Panel near Goodge Street for a 9:30am hearing. [...] One of 

five Rent Assessment Panels in England, the quasi-judicial body aims to settle disputes between 

private landlords and tenants in London. The hearing room itself is intimate setting with two 

panellists and the involved parties sitting at tables. 

The first case is from a tenant contesting a rise in her current rent, which is just over £600 per 

month for a two-bed flat near Goodge Street. Like much of the property in the area, the lower floors 

have been shops and workshops, with the top floor remaining as a flat for some exhausted Victorian 

or Edwardian shopkeeper to retire to. The landlord, a large property company, gives some 

background. They purchased the whole building a few years ago and with it came the tenant who 

was entitled to stay under the law. The landlord wants to upgrade the flat - the rest of the building 

has been refurbished and they claim the the flat is "very dated". The somewhat unknown condition 

of the flat's interior is the key to deciding how much the rent can be raised. 

The tenant, an articulate woman in her early 40s, gives her own version of the recent history. The 

flat goes back to her uncle, a man who became the tenant there in 1965 when there was still a small 

factory downstairs. She moved in with him and, when he passed away, took on the tenancy herself. 

According to her, the flat has no central heating or fitted kitchen, and the windows and gutters are 

also in a poor condition. […] 

The last hearing is […] one of a dying breed, a historical aberration. The one bed flat is still 

protected by the 1977 Rent Act, one of maybe 100,000 in the UK that operate the rent controls 

subsequently abolished in 1988. Under this Act, rents can only rise by an amount liked to the retail 

price index, what's termed "Fair Rent". Unfortunately, the tenant hasn't turned up, so the panel 

proceeds with the landlord's case. The one-bed flat is in St John's Wood, where a comparable flat 

would be rented out for £24,000 a year. Just nearby on Abbey Road, a similar flat was being 

advertised at £23,900. […] The tenants and landlords will receive a decision notice within 28 days. 

The hearings are over by lunchtime, which means the committee can carry out their visits in the 

afternoon, and decide what the rent should be.