Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd
Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd | |
---|---|
Dyson and Brooke LJJ | |
Case opinions | |
Brooke LJ | |
Keywords | |
confidentiality, injunction, |
Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the
The case first went to the
Background
Martha Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing allegations that she was linked to
The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in 2000, brought the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law. Article 8 of the convention covers "the right to respect for private and family life", and during the passage of the Act through Parliament, elements of the press were concerned that this could affect their freedom of expression. As such, Section 12 of the Act provides that, if a court is considering whether to grant relief which infringes on the right to freedom of expression (such as an injunction), it must "have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression", although recognising the other limits put on this right.[3] Where a relief (such as an injunction) is granted in the absence of the respondent, the court must be satisfied that the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the defendant was notified, unless there are compelling reasons why they should not be. The court must also not grant relief that would restrict publication before trial, unless satisfied that it is "more likely than not" that the trial will establish that publication should not be allowed.[4]
As a result of the Act, it was uncertain what test to use; was "a real prospect of success" at trial acceptable, or the easier test of "more likely than not" to succeed at trial? In Cream the House of Lords decided that "a real prospect of success" was still valid law, but that from then on the test of "more likely than not" should be applied. Following on from this ruling, Greene argued that the Bonnard test was now invalid, and that the case should be judged under the Human Rights Act and Cream.[5]
Court proceedings
The case first went before
References
- ^ Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462, [2005] 1 All ER 30, [2005] QB 972, [2005] 3 WLR 281, [2005] EMLR 217
- ^ Hatzis p.27
- ^ Cheney (1999) p.41
- ^ Wadham (2007) p.66
- ^ Foster (2004) p.87
- ^ Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd - Case Analysis - Queen's Bench Division. Sweet & Maxwell. 16 October 2004.
- ^ Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd - Case Analysis - Court of Appeal. Sweet & Maxwell. 5 November 2004.
- ^ Foster (2004) p.90
- ^ Hatzis p.31
Bibliography
- Cheney, Deborah (1999). Criminal Justice and the Human Rights Act 1998. Jordans. ISBN 0-85308-504-8.
- Foster, Steve (2004). "Freedom of expression, prior restraint and section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998". Coventry Law Journal. 9 (2).
- Hatzis, Nicholas (2006). "Libel, justification and injunctive relief under the Human Rights Act". Civil Justice Quarterly. 25: 27–31.
- Wadham, John (2007). Blackstone's Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929957-7.