Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q5603900> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 24 of
24
with 100 triples per page.
- Q5603900 subject Q6995691.
- Q5603900 subject Q8189157.
- Q5603900 subject Q8359491.
- Q5603900 abstract "REDIRECT Template:Infobox court caseGreene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that governs the use of injunctions against publication in alleged defamation cases. Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing alleged links with Peter Foster; while they claimed to have emails showing links, she asserted that they were false. The test at the time for a preliminary injunction in defamation cases was Bonnard v Perryman, where it was established that the applicant has to show "a real prospect of success" at trial. The Human Rights Act 1998 established that judges should consider whether applicants are "more likely than not" to succeed at trial, a test applied to confidentiality cases in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd. Greene claimed that the Cream test should be applied rather than the Bonnard test.The case first went to the High Court of Justice, where it was heard by Fulford J; he decided that he did not have the authority to overrule Bonnard, and passed the case on to the Court of Appeal after granting a temporary injunction. In the Court of Appeal, the case was heard by May, Dyson and Brooke LJJ, with Brooke delivering the judgment on 5 November 2004. In it, Brooke judged that defamation, the subject of Greene, was significantly different from breach of confidentiality, the subject in Cream. While the damage from a breach of confidentiality can never be undone, justifiying a simple test for issuing injunctions, a defamation case that is won vindicates the injured party. Making it easier to grant injunctions in defamation cases would damage the delicate balance between freedom of the press and the right to privacy; as such, despite the Human Rights Act, Bonnard is still a valid test.".
- Q5603900 wikiPageExternalLink 1462.html.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q1058404.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q1137751.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q1617747.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q1699865.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q183191.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q372951.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q477072.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q4773050.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q4971282.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q5183353.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q5378539.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q5718694.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q6995691.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q7174040.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q7269934.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q8189157.
- Q5603900 wikiPageWikiLink Q8359491.
- Q5603900 comment "REDIRECT Template:Infobox court caseGreene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that governs the use of injunctions against publication in alleged defamation cases. Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing alleged links with Peter Foster; while they claimed to have emails showing links, she asserted that they were false.".
- Q5603900 label "Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd".