Blog
China’s approval of the national security law signals the premature end to Hong Kong’s autonomy
Jessica Jim 詹穎怡
16 April 2020
Google granted permission to appeal landmark action in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently granted Google permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lloyd v Google [2019] EWCA Civ 1599. In summary, Google are appealing the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision granting Mr Lloyd permission to serve his representative action on Google outside of the jurisdiction.
22 May 2019
Divorce 101: how to keep family affairs out of the papers
This article first appears in Spear's 22nd May 2019
26 February 2019
Victims of blackmail: will your identity be protected?
For those who find themselves the unfortunate victims of blackmail, often in cases which concern sexually explicit information (‘sextortion’), the choice of how to respond can be extraordinarily difficult. As discussed in our earlier blog, one of the possible responses is to report the matter to the police, which may then result in a subsequent prosecution of the blackmailer.
21 February 2019
Was the Cliff Richard judgment really a blow to press freedom? The “Drone Couple” would likely disagree
The Cliff Richard privacy judgment was thought to be a landmark case when it comes to press reporting of a police investigation. Headlines following the judgment included “The Cliff Richard judgment is a chilling blow to press freedom” and “Cliff Richard privacy judgment threatens press freedom”. Whilst the result was a positive end to a terrible experience for Cliff Richard, has it really changed how the press report allegations? In this blog, we explore whether the ruling is taken into account when reporting on other types of investigations.
21 February 2019
Be warned - you can be held liable for the defamatory comments of another!
In the recent High Court judgment of Monir v Wood [2018], the Court held the Defendant liable for a defamatory tweet, even though he did not post or have knowledge of the tweet at the time. The Defendant was also held liable for failing to remove the defamatory material once it was brought to his attention.