Jump to content

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smasongarrison (talk | contribs) at 12:20, 2 April 2023 (Moving from Category:2006 in British case law to Category:2006 in United Kingdom case law using Cat-a-lot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided11 October 2006
Citations
  • [2007] 1 AC 359
  • [2006] 4 All ER 1279
  • [2006] UKHL 44
  • [2006] HRLR 41
  • [2007] Bus LR 291
  • [2006] 3 WLR 642
  • [2007] EMLR 2
  • [2007] EMLR 14
  • 21 BHRC 471
Case history
Prior action[2005] EWCA Civ 74
Court membership
Judges sitting
  • Lord Bingham of Cornhill
  • Lord Hoffmann
  • Lord Hope of Craighead
  • Lord Scott of Foscote
  • Baroness Hale of Richmond

Jameel & Ors v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl[1] was a House of Lords judgment on English defamation law. The issue was whether the defamatory article was protected by Reynolds privilege. The judgment was an affirmation of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and effectively upholds a public interest defence in libel cases.

References

  1. ^ "Jameel & Ors v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44 (11 October 2006)". BAWAII.
Stub icon

This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jameel_v_Wall_Street_Journal_Europe_Sprl&oldid=1147824882"