Archive for the ‘U.K. Human Rights Act’ Category

UPDATED: CTB v. Twitter, Inc. and Unknown Persons: Trying to Flog a Dead Horse

May 22, 2011

Briefly, the underlying case is CTB v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. et al. which is an English High Court Queen’s Bench Division judgment arising from litigation between an “anonymous” English premier league footballer, “CTB” and defendants News Group Newspapers Limited and Imogen Thomas. On 14 April 2011, Mr Justice Eady granted first a temporary injunction prohibiting the naming of the footballer in the media, which injunction was extended on April 21st, 2011. The injunction initially sought to prevent details of an extra-marital relationship between the married footballer CTB and Ms Thomas – from being published in the London newspaper, The Sun and was based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd et al. [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB) (16 May 2011) is analysed in depth by Edward Craven at Inforrm’s Blog: Case Law: CTB v News Group Newspapers: privacy law and the judiciary.

See also,

Since then, Twitter is abuzz about the news that CTB has commenced another action in the English court, this time against Twitter, Inc.  to disclose the identities of some of its anonymous account holders alleged to have breached Justice Eady’s injunctive order by disclosing the claimant’s identity:. The case is styled: CTB -v- Twitter, Inc. and Persons Unknown (Case No. HQ11XO1814. Read Charles Russell’s CRITique blog for a great summary here.

Unlike some others, I respect the Rule of Law and choose not to identify “CTB” in breach of Justice Eady’s injunctive order, irrespective of whether, in my opinion, any such order is unenforceable contra mundum. (more…)

Debunking the Myth of the Contra Mundum Injunction Order

April 25, 2011

In his “Postcard From The Staterooms: Urbi et Orbi and *Contra Mundum* edition” post, Charon QC’s UK Law Blog refers to an important privacy law decision from the England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): OPQ v BJM [2011] EWHC 1059 (QB). In what Mr. Justice Eady described as  “a straightforward and blatant blackmail case”, the learned Justice continued an injunction restraining the First Defendant and her partner from publishing confidential material about the Claimant’s private life and extended its application contra mundum (“against the world”).

I have no reason to doubt that Justice Eady’s injunctive order is binding on the English defendants and likely enforceable against third parties, particularly, any English media outlets within the territorial grasp of court’s jurisdiction.  It is not, however, enforceable in Canada and likely anywhere else in the world. (more…)

My Podcast Interview with Charon QC: Libel Tourism, Free Speech, Social Media and Anonymity

March 12, 2011

Many thanks to Mike Semple Piggot (a.k.a. Charon QC) for today’s podcast interview where we discuss legal topics of shared interest, including a comparison of the Canadian and English Legal systems – Libel tourism – Freedom of Speech – Social Media and internet anonymity. You can listen to the podcast at: Lawcast 180: Antonin Pribetic on Libel tourism, Freedom of Speech and social media

Thanks also to Cassons For CounselJustgodirect.com and  David Phillips & Partners Solicitors for sponsoring the podcast.

Padraic Ryan, “After Khadr: The Role of Citizenship in Extra-Territorial Constitutional Claims”

February 16, 2011

Padraic Ryan has posted on SSRN an article entitled: After Khadr: The Role of Citizenship in Extra-Territorial Constitutional Claims, 3rd Annual Canadian Law Student Conference, March 2010. The abstract reads:

In the wake of two recent Federal Court of Appeal decisions holding that non-citizens can never be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outside of Canada, even in the context of violations of international law, this paper canvasses American and British jurisprudence on non-citizens’ claims from Guantanamo and Iraq, respectively. It argues a jurisdictional approach, neutrally applied to citizens and non-citizens, is not the Pandora’s Box many jurists fear. Canadian courts should follow British decisions finding jurisdiction in British military prisons on foreign territory and that international law allows substantial flexibility in the resolution of these claims on the merits.

Corporate Liability under International Law: U.S. and Canadian perspectives

January 10, 2011

On September 17, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum ,(06-4800-cv, 06-4876-cv). In a 2-1 split decision, the Court ruled that the Alien Torts Statute (ATS) grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over alleged violations of international law by individuals only, not by corporations. Essentially, the majority opinion held that corporations cannot be sued under the ATS for violations of customary international law because “the concept of corporate liability . . . has not achieved universal recognition or acceptance of a norm in the relations of States with each other.”  (Slip op. at 49).

*Warning: This is a lengthy post (more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,830 other followers

%d bloggers like this: