Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Year1929
Date1929

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
54 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 published......
  • Tan Sri Dato' Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v Hj Hassan Hamzah and Others
    • 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
    ...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 need not be ......
  • Wong Yoke Kong v Azmi M Anshar
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2003
  • Get Started for Free