Latest news with #AssociatedNewspapers
BBC News
18 hours ago
- Business
- BBC News
Dale Vince's personal data claim against publisher thrown out
Dale Vince's High Court claim against a newspaper publisher has been thrown Vince, industrialist and founder of Stroud-based energy firm, Ecotricity, brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over a Daily Mail article headlined "Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor", published in June story said Labour was handing back money to donor Davide Serra with a picture showing Mr Vince holding a Just Stop Oil Vince claimed ANL misused his personal data, but the judge said it should have been heard with the defamation claim in July 2024 as "any ordinary reader would very quickly realise Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment". An employment tribunal in 2022 heard Mr Serra had made sexist comments to a female colleague which were found to amount to unlawful harassment related to original picture remained in print but was changed on The Mail+ app to one of Mr Serra 47 minutes after had defended the claim and its lawyers previously told the High Court in London it was an abuse of process and a "resurrection" of a libel claim that was dismissed last Justice Swift said at the High Court on Monday: "There is no real prospect that Mr Vince will succeed on his claim. Law 'predates internet' "As in the defamation proceedings, it is accepted that on reading the text of the article published in Mail+ and the Daily Mail any ordinary reader would very quickly realise that Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment."Considered on this basis the personal data relating to Mr Vince was processed fairly."He said there was "every reason" why the data protection claim should have been heard with the defamation claim last the decision, Mr Vince said he planned to appeal and the relevant media law "predates the internet".He said: "The judge said if you read the whole story, you'd realise the headline was not about me, begging the question why was my face highlighted in the articles perhaps."But more importantly, people don't read entire articles, the law assumes it - but does so wrongly, against all data and against common sense."
The Independent
a day ago
- Business
- The Independent
Dale Vince's High Court claim against Daily Mail publisher thrown out
Green energy industrialist Dale Vince's High Court claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail has been thrown out by a judge. Mr Vince brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article headlined ' Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor', published in June 2023. The story reported that the Labour Party was handing back money to donor Davide Serra with a picture showing Mr Vince holding a Just Stop Oil banner. This picture, published in print and on The Mail+ app, was changed to one of Mr Serra online 47 minutes after publication, while the original picture of Mr Vince remained in the print version. An employment tribunal in 2022 heard Mr Serra had made sexist comments to a female colleague which were found to amount to unlawful harassment related to sex. Mr Vince claimed ANL misused his personal data and that the publication of his photograph with this story would lead readers to believe he had been accused of sexual harassment. ANL had defended the claim, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court in London that it was an abuse of process and a 'resurrection' of a libel claim that was dismissed last year. In a judgment on Monday, a High Court judge threw out the data protection claim. Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no real prospect that Mr Vince will succeed on his claim. 'As in the defamation proceedings, it is accepted that on reading the text of the article published in Mail+ and the Daily Mail any ordinary reader would very quickly realise that Mr Vince was not being accused of sexual harassment. 'Considered on this basis the personal data relating to Mr Vince was processed fairly.' He said there was 'every reason' why the data protection claim should have been heard with the defamation claim last year. 'Both claims arose out of the same event, the publication of the article in Mail+ and the Daily Mail,' he added. 'Both claims rely on the same factual circumstances, namely the juxtaposition of the headline, photographs and caption, and the contention that the combination of the headline and the photograph created the misleading impression that Mr Vince had been accused of sexual harassment.'
AsiaOne
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- AsiaOne
Prince Harry's lawyers back in court against Daily Mail publisher, Entertainment News
LONDON — Lawyers for Prince Harry were back in court in London on Tuesday (May 6), days after he lost a legal fight with the government over his security arrangements and gave an emotional interview in which he said his father King Charles no longer spoke to him. Along with singer Elton John and five other high-profile British figures, Harry is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid, alleging widespread unlawful behaviour. They accuse ANL of serious privacy breaches dating back 30 years, ranging from tapping their phones and bugging their homes to obtaining medical records by deception. Among those they say were involved are current national newspaper editors and other senior press figures. ANL, which publishes the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, has denied involvement in unlawful practices and described the "lurid claims made by Prince Harry and others" as "simply preposterous". David Sherborne, the lawyer representing the seven claimants, said a two-day hearing which started on Tuesday would focus on issues relating to the disclosure of further material before a full trial expected next year. [[nid:716115]] Sherborne said disclosure so far had shown "widespread use of unlawful information gathering across the titles by journalists and various desks, but the approach to disclosure has allowed only a partial picture of the wrongdoing". ANL's lawyers said the claimants had not provided any disclosure to substantiate their allegations and argued in court filings that the claimants had given "no further particulars… of the allegations of hacking, tapping, blagging or perjury". 'Devastated' Harry, Charles' younger son, lost an appeal against the government on Friday over the decision to remove his right to automatic police protection while in Britain. Harry, who lives in California with his American wife Meghan and their two children, said the decision left him "devastated". He said in a BBC interview that while he wanted reconciliation with his family, his father would not speak to him because of the security issue. Charles is undergoing treatment for an unspecified form of cancer. Harry, the Duke of Sussex, said he did not know "how much longer my father has". Since moving to the United States, Harry and Meghan have criticised the royals in television documentaries, in an interview with chat show host Oprah Winfrey and in Harry's biography "Spare", accusing senior aides of colluding with tabloids to smear him. In a statement after Friday's ruling, Harry said the royal establishment had "preyed" on his mother Prince Diana, openly campaigned to remove his security and "continue to incite hatred towards me, my wife and even our children". Buckingham Palace has not commented on Harry's statement or interview other than to say all the issues surrounding the prince's police protection had been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts. The king and other senior royals made public appearances on Monday at commemorations marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Royal officials said they did not want anything to detract from that. Harry stepped down from royal life in March 2020. Since then he has successfully sued Mirror Group Newspapers and settled a claim against Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper group after it admitted unlawful behaviour including intruding into Diana's private life. [[nid:716584]]
Telegraph
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
‘This isn't a public inquiry,' judge warns Prince Harry
A High Court judge has warned the Duke of Sussex's lawyer that a claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail will not be allowed to turn into a public inquiry. Mr Justice Nicklin reproached David Sherborne, the barrister, at a preliminary hearing on Tuesday over his approach to the case. The judge said the claim must be 'focused on the things we know about' and that the court would not be examining every single article published by any one journalist. 'This isn't a public inquiry', he said, adding that he could not 'open the parameters of this case without limit'. Mr Sherborne argued that Associated's legal team had been 'excessive' when redacting documents, hiding information necessary to understand the 'true extent of the unlawful information gathering'. But the judge told him: 'I presume there was some evidential premises to the statement that there was widespread habitual use of unlawful information gathering. It's your case.' The Duke and several other high-profile individuals; Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, and Sir Simon Hughes, the former Liberal Democrat politician, have brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Ltd. They have accused the publisher of allegedly carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, 'blagging' private records, burglaries to order and accessing and recording private phone conversations. The Duke's claim concerns 14 articles published between 2001 and 2014. Associated firmly denies the allegations, describing them as 'lurid' and 'simply preposterous'. 'Cast-iron demonstration' The judge said that if there was a 'cast-iron demonstration' by a journalist that information was obtained from a 'straightforward, up and down source', it may represent a breach of confidence but not necessarily unlawful information gathering. The judge said it would not help him 'one bit' to then examine other articles by that journalist. He warned Mr Sherborne that he was coming 'perilously close' to suggesting that the defence was irrelevant just because he was satisfied that a particular journalist habitually used unlawful practices. 'What is the control mechanism to ensure this does not become a wide-ranging public inquiry?' he asked. 'What the court is looking for is real examples.' Mr Sherborne argued that further evidence was needed from Associated. 'The claimants' cases allege a web of illegal acts – pulling on threads of that web may reveal more of the pattern,' he said. Antony White KC, for Associated, accused the claimants of 'hunting for an ever-expanding case that there were other victims' of unlawful information gathering'. He said they were trying 'to fish for something' that might assist their claim. 'Associated denies the claims' Mr White also warned that the case must not be treated as 'just another example' of the phone hacking litigation brought against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) and News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the Sun and the now defunct News of the World. He accused the claimants of trying to maintain there was an 'obvious and inescapable inference' that if a journalist worked at a paper found guilty of phone hacking that person must be guilty in this case. 'These claims differ fundamentally from the claims against MGN and NGN', he argued, and must be 'independently proved'. The claims against NGN and MGN were based on 'a bedrock of criminal convictions', he said, adding: 'There is no similar 'bedrock' here. Associated denies the claims.'
The Independent
06-05-2025
- The Independent
Celebrities allege ‘web of illegal acts' by Mail publisher, court hears
A group of celebrities and politicians bringing legal action against the Daily Mail's publisher allege a 'web of illegal acts', the High Court has heard. Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley and politician Sir Simon Hughes have brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). The group of seven have accused Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of allegedly carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to tap phones, 'blagging' private records, and burglaries to order. ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal action after they previously described the claims as 'lurid' and 'simply preposterous'. At the start of a two-day preliminary hearing on Tuesday, the group's barrister, David Sherborne, said lawyers for ANL had been 'excessive' when redacting documents exchanged between the sides earlier this year. He told the hearing in London: 'The approach to disclosure has shown only a partial picture of the wrongdoing.' Mr Sherborne added that there was redaction of parts of the documents which are necessary to understand the 'true extent of the unlawful information gathering', which he later claimed was 'habitual and widespread'. In written submissions, the barrister said the 'overbroad redactions' by lawyers for ANL had made many documents 'incomprehensible or extremely time-consuming to analyse'. Mr Sherborne later added: 'The claimants' cases allege a web of illegal acts – pulling on threads of that web may reveal more of the pattern. 'In any event, the balance here favours disclosure to the claimants, even if on a confidential basis.' Mr Sherborne said the documents already disclosed reveal 'clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information-gathering by private investigators'. Antony White KC, for ANL, said in written submissions that, as well as denying the claims, the publisher has 'advanced a positive explanation' for where information in the articles used in the legal case came from. Addressing the redactions, the barrister said: 'Both sides applied redactions to their documents on grounds of irrelevance and legal privilege. 'The defendant also applied a limited number of further redactions to protect journalists' confidential sources.' Mr White also said the disclosure 'does not require the defendant to disclose material which might assist the claimant in hunting for an ever-expanding case that there were other 'victims' of unlawful information gathering'. He later said there was a 'lack of transparency' in the documents disclosed to them by lawyers for the high-profile individuals. The barrister added that, 'with very limited exceptions', the alleged unlawful acts or private information obtained have not been properly set out by lawyers for the seven people. He continued: 'The claimants have what they need to properly particularise such allegations as they feel able to put on the record. 'They have instead delayed in order to fish for something they hope might assist them. 'They do this while at the same time making untrue claims about what the disclosure given is said to have established.' The hearing comes just days after Harry lost a Court of Appeal battle over his security arrangements while in the UK. The duke lost his appeal against the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK. The challenge came after Harry and Meghan left the UK and first moved to Canada, and then California, after announcing they wanted to step back as senior royals.
