England and Wales Case Law

Oliver Price v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Section 41(1) FOIA applies to information in the Burlington Report obtained from the whistleblower and others, but not to material generated internally or not derived from another person. Section 40(2) FOIA applies to personal data within the Report, but the Council's redactions were overly broad and must be limited to only what is necessary to protect personal data. For most of the confidential information, the Council would have a public interest defence to disclosure, except for certain parts identified in the confidential Annex. The Council failed to adequately demonstrate that no other i…

Source excerpt

• Freedom of information
• Personal data
• Confidentiality
• Whistleblowing
• Public interest defence

Read case analysis

Feldman & Ors v Gambling Commission

Feldman & Ors v Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 76 (KB) (19 January 2026)

The High Court dismissed claims for misuse of private information and breach of confidence arising from 888’s 2023 RNS and a 2024 Gambling Commission statement.

• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Regulatory disclosure
• Public interest defence
• Data protection
• Injunctions

Read case analysis

Munim v Rahman

Munim v Rahman [2025] EWHC 3051 (KB) (19 November 2025)

High Court summary disposal in a libel claim over Facebook posts accusing the claimant of stealing business ideas and intellectual property.

• Summary disposal
• Libel
• Serious harm
• Truth defence
• Honest opinion
• Public interest defence

Read case analysis

Mohammed Abdul Munim v Hafizur Rahman

The High Court granted summary disposal in a defamation claim over Facebook posts accusing the claimant of stealing business ideas and intellectual property.

• Summary disposal
• False and defamatory statements
• Serious harm
• Truth defence
• Honest opinion defence
• Public interest defence

Read case analysis

Naseer v Raja

Naseer v Raja [2025] EWHC 2565 (KB) (09 October 2025)

High Court libel trial: Rashid Naseer succeeded against Adil Farooq Raja over social media allegations, with damages, injunction, and a summary publication order.

• Libel
• Serious harm
• Public interest defence
• Jurisdiction
• Damages
• Injunctions

Read case analysis

Rashid Naseer v Adil Farooq Raja

The Defendant's publications caused serious harm to the Claimant's reputation in the UK, and the Defendant failed to establish a reasonable belief in the public interest defence under s4 Defamation Act 2013 for all but one publication; the Claimant is entitled to damages, injunction, and summary of judgment.

Source excerpt

• Libel
• Serious harm
• Public interest defence
• Damages
• Injunction
• Summary of judgment

Read case analysis

Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News and Media Limited

High Court defamation judgment over Guardian reporting on Noel Clarke, addressing serious harm, truth, and public interest under the Defamation Act 2013.

• Libel
• Serious harm
• Truth defence
• Public interest defence
• Data protection
• Sexual harassment

Read case analysis

Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd

Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB) (22 August 2025)

High Court libel trial judgment on Noel Clarke’s claim against the Guardian over eight articles, addressing truth, public interest, and serious harm.

• Libel
• Truth defence
• Public interest defence
• Serious harm
• Reporting restrictions
• Confidential sources

Read case analysis

Chaudhry & Anor v Qureshi

Chaudhry & Anor v Qureshi [2025] EWHC 1912 (KB) (25 July 2025)

The High Court held that a journalist’s interview/video series falsely imputed blackmail, sexual assault, torture and corruption to two politicians, and awarded damages.

• Libel
• Serious harm
• Public interest defence
• Damages
• Injunctions
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News and Media Limited

The application to re-amend was refused because it was filed very late without adequate explanation, and the proposed amendments—except for a limited addition—were deficient, unparticularised, and failed to meet the high pleading standard required for serious allegations such as conspiracy and bad faith. The limited amendment allowed did not prejudice the Defendant and was sufficiently clear.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Public interest defence
• Pleading standards
• Late applications
• Allegations of conspiracy and bad faith

Read case analysis