Skip to main content

1-20 of 1,043 results for legtitle:"Defamation Bill 2012-13"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Type
Public acts
Date
25 April 2013
Reference
2013 c. 26; CHAP 26 2013
Type
Legislative formal proceedings
Date
25 April 2013
Reference
744 cc1563-4
House
House of Lords
Type
Legislative formal proceedings
Date
25 April 2013
Reference
561 c1070
House
House of Commons

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu of Lords amendment 2, to which this House has disagreed.

The reasons that this House gave for disagreeing to certain amendments to the Bill have been considered in the other place, and a further amendment has been agreed...

Member
Helen Grant (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c913
House
House of Commons

Why does my hon. Friend say that? What is the difference between “serious” and “substantial”?

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c913
House
House of Commons

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will go into details about the motion that he tabled, but as we have made clear, we think it is helpful that there will be a direct link between serious harm and serious financial loss. That will make the situation absolutely...

Member
Helen Grant (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 cc913-4
House
House of Commons

Thanks to a lot of hard work—especially in the other place, it has to be said—the Bill is now in a much better place. It is still far from perfect, sadly, which is a huge shame. It could have been perfect and a marvel to behold, but sadly the to-do...

Member
Robert Flello (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 cc914-5
House
House of Commons

I must disappoint the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) because I do not think my motion has been selected. None the less, I am not prevented from—and nor shall I be inhibited from—saying a few things about where we are now. There are plenty of aspects of the...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 cc915-7
House
House of Commons

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept, however, that what we hear time and time again is that cases do not get to court because of the bullying by corporations at an early stage? People give in straight away or, more often—as in the Serco case, which I think...

Member
Robert Flello (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c917
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman no doubt makes a correct factual point, but I think he exaggerates it. The number of cases involving corporate claimants is small and the damages they recover, absent special damages, is low. Damages to trading reputation alone probably attract £20,000 at the top end and usually no...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c917
House
House of Commons

He was!

Member
Helen Goodman (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c917
House
House of Commons

The Court of Appeal disagreed with that and said—the case is called Sperrings, if the hon. Lady is interested—that there was no basis for suggesting that Jimmy Goldsmith was misconducting himself, albeit that a reasonable person could comment that he was using his financial wealth to bully those defendants. The...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c917
House
House of Commons

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Member
Peter Bottomley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c917
House
House of Commons

Although my hon. Friend was not here at the beginning of the debate, I will, if I may, permit him to intervene.

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c918
House
House of Commons

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, but as soon as I saw that he was on his feet, I came as fast as I could, dropping everything else. Last week I voted the way I intend to vote this week.

Member
Peter Bottomley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c918
House
House of Commons

At least you’re consistent.

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c918
House
House of Commons

And I still think I am right. Can my hon. and learned Friend give some examples of where corporations have taken defamation or libel cases that were necessary and could not have been dealt with in another way? As he says, the problem with illustrative cases is that they do...

Member
Peter Bottomley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c918
House
House of Commons

Obviously I cannot give my hon. Friend a catalogue of cases one way or the other. What I can tell him is that if clause 1 is amended as he always wanted and as the Government now want, the case of Wilmshurst, in which he was sued by NMT Medical,...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 cc918-9
House
House of Commons

That’s age.

Member
Peter Bottomley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c919
House
House of Commons

My hon. and very elderly Friend says, “That’s age.” Well, he has more experience of—

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
24 April 2013
Reference
561 c919
House
House of Commons