Latest news with #legalDispute
BBC News
16-05-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Allington Lane garden centre fears over Southern Water works
A garden nursery owner has said he could be forced to close because of the impact of sewer works on a nearby housing Goodridge said work by Southern Water for the One Horton Heath project in Fair Oak, near Eastleigh, resulted in flooding in believes roadworks near the entrance to his business also put off potential customers, which led to a legal dispute with the water firm.A Southern Water spokesperson said they had been in "regular contact" with Mr Goodridge and had made a goodwill payment. Mr Goodridge's business is based in Allington Lane, just down the road from the One Horton Heath development, where 2,500 homes and a school need connecting to sewers. Works were ongoing through Decemeber and the Allington Lane Nursery owner claims Southern Water caused flooding by blocking gullies with pipes. Mr Goodridge said this flooding damaged his stocks of garden furniture, fireworks and fertiliser. The water firm has recently completed urgent gas works in the road, during which time there was a legal dispute over access to Mr Goodridge's land."Our savings have all gone into this now, because we've had to put the money in," he explained."There is an element of risk that it could not survive. I feel like, what's the point in coming down in the mornings, what's the point in getting up early? "You're just fighting a brick wall, if it carries on like this we're going to be dumping tens of thousands of plants." A Southern Water spokesperson said the firm understood work "can be disruptive to customers" and a member of the team would be meeting with Mr Goodridge in the next added: "After lengthy negotiations and following urgent gas works, we began our works on 7 April and completed on 2 May. "We apologise for the extended length of time involved, and made a goodwill payment to Mr Goodridge as a result."Mr Goodridge has denied this statement and said he has not received an interim said he fears the "damage has already been done" and is meeting with his accountant to find out if his business can remain viable. You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Zawya
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
India Supreme Court reverses content takedown order against Wikipedia operator
India's Supreme Court on Friday quashed a lower court ruling ordering online encyclopedia operator Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, to remove a page describing its legal dispute with an Indian news agency. Indian news agency ANI last year sued Wikimedia for defamation in the Delhi High Court over the way a Wikipedia page described the news agency. ANI said in its lawsuit it was being described on its Wikipedia page as an agency facing criticism for being a "propaganda tool" for the government. Wikimedia, which has denied wrongdoing, was ordered by the High Court to take down another page describing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court judges backed a legal challenge by Wikimedia, which had called that takedown order as one which would have a "chilling effect on free speech". The Supreme Court said the takedown order was the result of the high court reacting "disproportionately." "Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms," the 37-page Supreme Court order said. ANI in a statement said it welcomes the court's "affirmation of the press's right to report on legal proceedings, while also noting that litigants may seek reporting restrictions in exceptional cases to avoid prejudice." Wikimedia Foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday's verdict. Reuters, which owns a 26% stake in ANI, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It has previously said it was not involved in ANI's business practices or operations. (Reporting by Arpan Chaturvedi; Editing by Aditya Kalra and Jane Merriman)
Reuters
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
India Supreme Court reverses content takedown order against Wikipedia operator
NEW DELHI, May 9 (Reuters) - India's Supreme Court on Friday quashed a lower court ruling ordering online encyclopedia operator Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, to remove a page describing its legal dispute with an Indian news agency. Indian news agency ANI last year sued Wikimedia for defamation in the Delhi High Court over the way a Wikipedia page described the news agency. ANI said in its lawsuit it was being described on its Wikipedia page as an agency facing criticism for being a "propaganda tool" for the government. Wikimedia, which has denied wrongdoing, was ordered by the High Court to take down another page describing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court judges backed a legal challenge by Wikimedia, which had called that takedown order as one which would have a "chilling effect on free speech". The Supreme Court said the takedown order was the result of the high court reacting "disproportionately." "Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms," the 37-page Supreme Court order said. ANI in a statement said it welcomes the court's "affirmation of the press's right to report on legal proceedings, while also noting that litigants may seek reporting restrictions in exceptional cases to avoid prejudice." Wikimedia Foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday's verdict. Reuters, which owns a 26% stake in ANI, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It has previously said it was not involved in ANI's business practices or operations.
The Guardian
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Nevada hearing could provide look into dispute over who will control Murdoch empire
A hearing before Nevada's high court today could provide the first public window into a secretive legal dispute over who will control Rupert Murdoch's powerful media empire after he dies. The case over the Murdoch family trust has been unfolding behind closed doors in state court in Reno, Nevada. But the proceedings have remained under seal, with the Nevada courts barely acknowledging the legal action even exists. Media outlets including CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post are now asking the Nevada supreme court to unseal the case and make future hearings public. The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the afternoon in Carson City, the capital. In September, the news organizations petitioned a district court for access, arguing that the secrecy violated a constitutional right to access. 'The public has immense interest in which of Murdoch's children will succeed him,' the news outlets said in their petition. 'The succession will affect thousands of jobs, millions of worldwide media consumers, and the American political landscape.' The outlets argued that 'Nevada's courts are accountable to the public, and the public is entitled to know whether the trust at issue is being administered in accordance with the law. Certainly, an entire matter cannot be sealed such that its very existence is not a public record, even if all parties to the litigation agree.' But the district court denied that request and the proceedings remained private. Now, Rupert Murdoch's challenge to change the trust to keep just one of his sons, Lachlan, in charge and ensure that Fox News maintains its conservative-leaning editorial slant, looks set continue alongside challenges by media organizations to have open access to the proceedings. In December, it was revealed that the Nevada's probate court had rejected the media mogul's challenge, ruling that Murdoch's four adult children would still have equal, shared control over their father's media empire upon his death. Nevada commissioner Edmund Gorman concluded that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch had acted in 'bad faith' in their attempts to change the terms of the trust. In the opinion, according to the Times, Gorman accused the elder Murdoch of organizing a 'carefully crafted charade' to 'permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch's executive roles' inside the empire 'regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries' of the family trust, according to the Times. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion In a statement, James, Elisabeth and Prudence told the Times: 'We welcome Commissioner Gorman's decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.' Adam Streisand, a lawyer for Rupert Murdoch, told the newspaper at the time that they were disappointed with the ruling and intended to appeal. Another evidentiary hearing is scheduled for this month. The Associated Press contributed to this report
