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

  • David Murray on Right of audience denied: McKenzie Friend not allowed to speak for litigant who was ‘well able to speak on her own behalf’
  • Julie Doughty on Will my Family Court judgment be published?
  • Julie Doughty on Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers
  • Ann M. Hale, BAILII Executive Director on Will my Family Court judgment be published?
  • Anonymous on Guidance on parents recording meetings with social workers

Search for something in particular

More search options

October 2025
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Sep    
  • 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 care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments judiciary legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct 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