Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q5183353> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 24 of
24
with 100 triples per page.
- Q5183353 subject Q6996184.
- Q5183353 subject Q8189157.
- Q5183353 abstract "REDIRECT Template:Infobox court caseCream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [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.".
- Q5183353 wikiPageExternalLink 44.html.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q1058404.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q1137751.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q137955.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q1586895.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q16151588.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q1617747.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q1818985.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q183191.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q2150585.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q477072.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q4971282.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q6658415.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q6778968.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996184.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q7610493.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q8189157.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q908568.
- Q5183353 wikiPageWikiLink Q908639.
- Q5183353 comment "REDIRECT Template:Infobox court caseCream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [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.".
- Q5183353 label "Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee".