Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
57 cases
  • Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 February 1970
    ...told the jury to put their evidence on one side. 30 The only cases, of which know, which are inconsistent with this principle are Cassidy v. Daily Mirror. ( 1929 2 K. B. 331); and Hough v. London Express, ( 1940 2 K. B. 507), which followed it. In Cassidy's. Case, the Daily Mirror publish......
  • Haji Hasan bin Hamzah and Others; Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1995
  • Taveta Investments Ltd v The Financial Reporting Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 29 June 2018
    ...are rare: Stern v Piper [1997] QB 123, 136Bper Simon Brown LJ; vii) the meaning the publisher intended to convey is irrelevant: Cassidy v Daily Mirror [1929] 2 KB 331, 354per Russell LJ; viii) for a viable defamation claim, the words complained of must refer to the claimant. The claimant ne......
  • Wong Yoke Kong v Azmi M Anshar
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2003
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Universities, Defamation and the Internet
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 62-1, January 1999
    • 1 January 1999
    ...Potential for InternationalForum Shopping’ (1995) 16 U Pennsylvania J Int’l Business Law 527.8 See eg Cassidy vDaily Mirror Newspapers [1929] 2 KB 331, 354.9 See Gringras, n 2 above, 92; N. Braithwaite, ‘The Internet and Bulletin Board Defamations’ (1995)145 NLJ 1216. For illuminating discu......
  • Public Protests, Private Lawsuits, and the Market: The Investor Response to the McLibel Case
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Law and Society Nbr. 28-2, June 2001
    • 1 June 2001
    ...(Belt v. Lawes [1882] 51 LJQB 359 at 361), or that thedefendant acted intentionally or in bad faith (Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers[1929] 2 KB 331, at 354). If a defamatory statement is made in some permanentform (a ‘libel’), damages are presumed (Ratcliffe v. Evans [1892] 2 QB 524, at ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT