ONE BRICK COURT | 1BC

Chambers of Sir Edward Garnier QC. clerks@onebrickcourt.com | Tel: 020 7353 8845 | Fax: 020 7583 9144 | @OneBrickCourt
News/Articles Search


Advanced search
Cases Search

Advanced search
Barristers
Catrin Evans QC

Catrin Evans QC
Call: 1994 Silk: 2016

Find out more


Specialists in media and information law

One Brick Court is a leading set of barristers’ chambers practising in all aspects of media and information law, including defamation, privacy, confidence, contempt of court, reporting restrictions, freedom of information and data protection.

Winner of Set of the Year for ‘Defamation and Privacy’ in the Chambers and Partners Bar Awards 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2016.

 

Latest News & Cases RSSRSS

Huda v Wells & Ors [2017] EWHC 2553 (QB)

16th October 2017 - Service out of the jurisdiction in Jersey; defamation and malicious falsehood; absolute privilege; indemnity costs.

Tamiz v UK

12th October 2017 -n an important endorsement of the UK's approach to online intermediary liability and the wider balance to be struck between the rights of claimants and publishers where claims for repetitional damage are brought, the European Court of Human Rights has today dismissed a challenge brought by Payam Tamiz against the United Kingdom government. Mr Tamiz maintained that a decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss his defamation claim against Google Inc. in 2013 constituted a breach of his rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the ECHR. However, the European Court rejected this argument, holding that the national courts had achieved a fair balance between Mr Tamiz's right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and the important rights of freedom of expression which were enjoyed by both Google Inc. and its end users. David Glen acted on behalf of the United Kingdom Government in the proceedings. Catrin Evans QC acted for Google Inc. who intervened as an interested party (instructed by Pinsent Masons) and also acted for Google Inc. in the domestic proceedings (instructed by RPC LLP).

Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Service

13th October 2017 - Defamation - CPS upholds libel meaning decision on appeal. Aidan Eardley, instructed by the Government Legal Department, was junior counsel for the Respondent

One Brick Court top ranked in the new Legal 500 2017

13th October - One Brick Court and its members are once again ranked by the Legal 500 across three practice areas. Chambers is highly ranked in Defamation & Privacy, with all 6 silks and 11 juniors recommended, as well as being ranked in Data Protection and Media and Entertainment.

New Data Protection Bill published

3rd October 2017 - The UK government has published the Data Protection Bill, which received its first reading in the House of Lords on 13 September 2017. The Bill is a complex document over 200 pages long, with seven parts, 194 sections and 18 schedules. The Explanatory Notes published alongside it are themselves over 100 pages long. As explained in the Notes, the purpose of the Bill is to “provide a comprehensive legal framework for data protection in the UK”. The Data Protection Act 1998 will be repealed. The GDPR provides the primary framework and the Bill seeks to ensure that its effect will be retained in UK law post-Brexit. The Bill both adopts the GDPR’s terms and implements the Member States’ exemption and derogation powers it contains. The Bill also seeks to extend the application of the GDPR to non-EU matters and incorporates provisions relating to national security. The Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 10 October 2017.

Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521

13th September 2017 - Supreme Court of Victoria (Dixon J)

Lachaux v AOL (UK) Limited and Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1334, McFarlane, Davis, Sharp LJJ

12th September 2017 - Court of Appeal dismisses the appeals of the defendants on the facts and law in its first judgment on the serious harm test in s.1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013. Andrew Caldecott QC, Manuel Barca QC and Hannah Ready (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) acted for AOL (UK) Ltd.

Barbulescu v Romania

5th September 2017 - Article 8 ECHR