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.
