Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 30 of
30
with 100 triples per page.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd abstract "Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd [2004] UKHL 44 was a 2004 decision by the House of Lords on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on freedom of expression. The Act, particularly Section 12, cautioned the courts to only grant remedies that would restrict publication before trial where it is "likely" that the trial will establish that the publication would not be allowed. Banerjee, an accountant with Cream Holdings, obtained documents which she claimed contained evidence of illegal and unsound practices on Cream's part and gave them to the Liverpool Daily Post & Echo, who ran a series of articles on 13 and 14 June 2002 asserting that a director of Cream had been bribing a local council official in Liverpool. Cream applied for an emergency injunction on 18 June in the High Court of Justice, where Lloyd J decided on 5 July that Cream had shown "a real prospect of success" at trial, granting the injunction. This judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 13 February 2003.Leave was given to appeal to the House of Lords, where a judgment was given on 14 October 2004 by Lord Nicholls, with the other judges assenting. In it, Nicholls said that the test required by the Human Rights Act, "more likely than not", was a higher standard than "a real prospect of success", and that the Act "makes the likelihood of success at the trial an essential element in the court's consideration of whether to make an interim order", asserting that in similar cases courts should be reluctant to grant interim injunctions unless it can be shown that the claimant is "more likely than not" to succeed. At the same time, he admitted that the "real prospect of success" test was not necessarily insufficient, granting the appeal nonetheless because Lloyd J had ignored the public interest element of the disclosure. As the first confidentiality case brought after the Human Rights Act, Cream is the leading case used in British "breach of confidentiality" cases.".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd wikiPageExternalLink 44.html.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd wikiPageID "26304601".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd wikiPageRevisionID "491927952".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd citations "[2004] UKHL 44".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd court Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd dateDecided "2004-10-14".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd fullName "Cream Holdings Limited & Others v Chumki Banerjee & The Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Limited".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd hasPhotoCollection Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd judges Donald_Nicholls,_Baron_Nicholls_of_Birkenhead.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd judges "Lady Hale".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd judges "Lord Hoffmann".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd judges "Lord Scott".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd judges "Lord Woolf".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd keywords "confidentiality, human rights".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd name "Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd opinions "Nicholls".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd priorActions "Court of Appeal of England and Wales".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd priorActions "High Court of Justice Chancery Division".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd transcripts "transcript at BAILII".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd subject Category:2004_in_case_law.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd subject Category:2004_in_the_United_Kingdom.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd subject Category:House_of_Lords_cases.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd comment "Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd [2004] UKHL 44 was a 2004 decision by the House of Lords on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on freedom of expression. The Act, particularly Section 12, cautioned the courts to only grant remedies that would restrict publication before trial where it is "likely" that the trial will establish that the publication would not be allowed.".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd label "Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd".
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd sameAs m.0b75j2y.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd sameAs Q5183353.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd sameAs Q5183353.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd wasDerivedFrom Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd?oldid=491927952.
- Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd isPrimaryTopicOf Cream_Holdings_Ltd_v_Banerjee_and_the_Liverpool_Post_and_Echo_Ltd.