Search results
115 results ordered by
7/7 footage withheld from public to protect privacy of victims and their families
The Coroner conducting the inquest into the terror attacks in London on 7 July 2005 has ordered that certain footage shown in court of the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks should not be released to the media.
Read moreAnonymity of egg and sperm donors
A survey by Manchester Fertility Services highlights issues of privacy concerning egg and sperm donation.
Read moreApplications for privacy injunctions – when notice need not be given
In DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB) Sharp J made an order to restrain publication of allegedly private and confidential information without notice having been given to either the respondent or the media.
Read moreAnonymisation of parties in matrimonial proceedings
The Court of Appeal has lifted an order by a family court judge which directed that the parties to the proceedings should be anonymised.
Read moreArbitration or winding up?
In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to reject an application to set aside a statutory demand. The appellant had argued (among other things) that an arbitration clause in his agreement with the respondent required their dispute to be referred to arbitration.
Read moreSilicon Valley, Signature and Credit Suisse: what do they all share(holder) in common?
In what has been termed "the biggest banking crisis since 2008", both Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank have collapsed, and Credit Suisse has been rescued. Whether more banks are to follow suit is yet to be seen.
Read moreFull and frank disclosure means more than just putting relevant matters in evidence – a new year warning in UKIP v Braine & Others
New year, new reminder of the obligation to make full and frank disclosure in without notice applications, this time in the context of a falling out within the UKIP party. The obligation can only be satisfied by drawing the court's attention to legal or factual matters which could undermine the applicant's own application; it is not enough to simply put relevant matters in evidence before the court (UKIP v Braine & Others). Injunction, confidential, publication and non-disclosure.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here