info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
Interim privacy injunctions: a change in the rules to improve the recording of data

Interim privacy injunctions: a change in the rules to improve the recording of data

by Paul M | Jan 9, 2020 | Comment, Transparency News

In 2017 a new list was created in the Queen’s Bench Division, to be known as the Media and Communications List, and Mr Justice Warby, a media law specialist, was put in charge of it. The list was designed to deal with the broader range of media-related claims than was...
New approach to media cases at the Royal Courts of Justice is a welcome development

New approach to media cases at the Royal Courts of Justice is a welcome development

by Judith Townend | Feb 27, 2018 | Comment, Consultations

This is an edited version of an article which first appeared in Communications Law journal, volume 23, issue 1 (Bloomsbury Professional) and PA Media Lawyer and is re-published here with permission and thanks. In 2012 Mr Justice Tugendhat, ahead of his retirement in...
Media litigation: user group meeting – 15 February 2018

Media litigation: user group meeting – 15 February 2018

by Paul M | Feb 16, 2018 | Transparency News

Media and Communications List User Group The Queen’s Bench Division Media and Communications List User Group (MACLUG) met again on 15 February to discuss progress since its inaugural meeting on 7 November 2017. (See ICLR blog, Media Litigation: a new approach ) The...
Where did all the privacy injunctions go? A response to the Queen’s Bench ‘Media List’ consultation

Where did all the privacy injunctions go? A response to the Queen’s Bench ‘Media List’ consultation

by Judith Townend | May 27, 2017 | Comment, Consultations, Transparency News

According to the latest official statistics on privacy injunctions in January to December 2016 there were just three proceedings where the High Court considered an application for a new interim privacy injunction. Two were granted, one was refused. Two appeals were...

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Julie Doughty on ‘Paedophiles to be stripped of parental rights’? and other failed legislative amendments
  • Anon on ‘Paedophiles to be stripped of parental rights’? and other failed legislative amendments
  • O Verit on Cross examination of medical experts – exceptional or exceptionally important?
  • DH on Completing care proceedings in less than 26 weeks
  • Julie Doughty on ASSISTED DYING: WHAT ROLE FOR THE PANEL? Thoughts on the latest (amended) proposals

Search for something in particular

More search options

May 2025
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Apr    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 Article 10 assisted dying Cafcass child protection committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid COVID-19 CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments law courts legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct Multi-disciplinary conference open justice parental alienation privacy injunctions psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok