Changes to the CPR for media and communications claims
From 1 October 2019, significant changes to CPR 53 will come into force, establishing the Queen’s Bench Division’s (QBD) Media and Communications List (M&C list), a specialist list of the High Court to deal with claims arising in the area of media and communications. The M&C list was created in May 2017 but had not been reflected in the CPR prior to these changes. The existing CPR 53 solely related to defamation claims, and was seen by many to be significantly out of step with current practice in media and communications litigation.
The new CPR 53 provides that any High Court claim in relation to the following must be brought within the M&C list:
- Misuse of private information.
- Data protection.
- Harassment by publication.
CPR 53.1(3) states that a High Court claim must be issued in the M&C list if it is or includes a claim for defamation, misuse of private information, data protection law or harassment by publication. This amendment means that any such claim must be issued at the Royal Courts of Justice, and it is anticipated that judges of the Chancery Division will become M&C list specialists.
The new practice direction to CPR 53 contains specific requirements for statements of case in claims for privacy, data protection and harassment by publication.
Interestingly, the new practice direction provides that in claims for harassment “arising from publication or threatened publication via the media, online or in speech”, CPR 65.28(1)(a) shall not apply and the claim should proceed under the Part 7 procedure in the M&C list. CPR 65.28(1)(a) currently provides that a claim under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is subject to the Part 8 procedure. Such claims may involve a substantial dispute of facts, so this change to the practice direction arguably better reflects the nature of a claim for harassment arising from publication or threatened publication, rather than applying the procedure for traditional claims for harassment.
The new protocol sets out specific requirements for letters before action in media and communications claims. The protocol sets out clearly, in bullet point form, the information that should be considered in such claims.
The new protocol also sets out the information that a defendant should include in its response to any letter before action, closely mirroring the old defamation protocol which it replaces. The defendant must indicate whether it accepts an order for the claimant to bring a claim anonymously.
Guidelines on settlement and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are provided; specifically that the court will expect parties to have considered ADR (with the reference to the now defunct Press Complaints Commission being replaced with “a press regulator established to deal with complaints from members of the public about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines or an arbitrator scheme operated by such regulator”).
The provision of details such as these, particularly in relation to letters of claim for data protection claims, will come as welcome clarity for both practitioners and litigants in person, because the information required for data protection claims had not previously been set out in such a clear fashion.
Whilst the amendments to the CPR are, broadly speaking, a matter of procedure, they do serve to remind practitioners how this type of litigation has changed in recent years; particularly with a focus on data protection claims.
An increased awareness of a claimant’s ability to bring a claim under data protection legislation, particularly following the implementation of the GDPR, highlights one significant change to the CPR and demonstrates the impact that today’s digital age has had on litigation. This can be seen more specifically in the number of claims arising from an increase in content published online (not limited to publishing solely by traditional publishers).
There is often the temptation, in the digital age, to “throw in” additional causes of action, including data protection claims or a claim for misuse of private information. Practitioners should be aware that, in doing so, the claim may be transferred into the M&C List and out of the Business and Property Courts.
Arguably, an issue that arises with this change to the CPR is that these causes of action are not necessarily linked or connected in any way, yet are banded together under the umbrella of “media and communications” for the sake of convenience. The temptation may arise simply to band claims of this type together when contemplating potential causes of action for clients. However, practitioners should remember that each type of claim (defamation, misuse of private information, data protection and harassment by publication) has its own particular quirks or nuances that must be observed, despite being dealt with by the same list as other media and communications claims.
The biggest impact for practitioners will be the requirement to issue claims in the QBD, in the M&C list, whereas claims have previously been brought in both the Chancery Division and the QBD.
Practically speaking, it means that media and communications claims will now be heard in a specialist court by specialist judges. However the codifying of the mandatory use of such a list does raise questions about the potential for backlog, given that relatively few judges specialise in such claims. The change may be particularly problematic given the recent surge in media and communications claims. It remains to be seen how a relatively new list will cope with such a huge increase in demand from 1 October 2019, particularly given the QBD’s recent move to e-filing.
On a positive note, the new regime of the M&C list highlights that the courts are placing greater value on media and communications claims and realising that, often, such claims require specialist judges who are well-versed in the areas of defamation, misuse of private information, data protection and harassment by publication. The lasting effects of this will likely be seen in case law moving forward and, despite the potential practical difficulties, may prove to be of benefit to this increasingly important area of the law.
This blog was first published on the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog.
Rethinking Museum Governance
What are the legal responsibilities of museum trustees?
Property Patter: Break Options – The Top 5 Traps
Top 5 tips for exercising break options.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises FairXchange on investment from United Fintech
FairXchange was founded in 2016, to bring clarity and transparency to execution performance through the provision of independent data.
Sustainable Rural Estate Management: The Penpont Project
Listen for an insight into the thinking behind the Penpont Project.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on the acquisition of M9 Holdings
The acquisition of M9 Holdings marks the latest stage in Acora’s growth journey.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon, Georgina Munnik and Sam Saunders write for Lexology's Getting The Deal Through on the enforcement of foreign judgments in Bahrain
Bahrain is a signatory to a number of bilateral and multilateral reciprocal recognition treaties.
Reform of the UK Prospectus Regime
This article focuses on three aspects of the consultation: Quality and Duplication, Widening participation in public offers, Agility
Arbitration agreements: governing law clarified and NOM clauses show their bite
Sam and Simon look at the recent developments concerning how the English courts will determine the governing law of arbitration agreements.
Dilapidations: the law and the reality
Emma Humphreys outlines how the Dilapidations Protocol and related guidance applies in practice.
Samuel Jenkins and Simon Heatley write for Practical Law Magazine on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group
The Supreme Court decision provides clarity on how the English courts will determine the governing law of arbitration agreements.
Investing with purpose - What is the goal of a family office?
A family office’s overall strategy and goals should be informed by the family’s investment purposes, ethics and beliefs.
Property Patter: Just how protected are Rent Act and Assured Tenants?
Landlords of residential property can still come across Rent Act and Assured Tenancies.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Silbury Finance on a £35m facility to a Jersey unit trust to finance the development of a 89 unit retirement living village in Tunbridge Wells, Kent
The joint venture will finance the development of a 89 unit retirement living village in Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Piers Master and Peter Smith write for eprivateclient on tailoring arbitration for family offices
The advantages of arbitration over litigation as a form of dispute resolution are well-known.
Charles Russell Speechlys named in Global Restructuring Review’s GRR 100 2021
Restructuring and Insolvency team ranked in Global Restructuring Review
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon, Sara Sheffield and Peter Smith write for Lexology Getting The Deal Through on enforcement of foreign judgments in the United Arab Emirates
A quick reference guide enabling side-by-side comparison of local insights into relevant treaties, conventions and other sources of law.
Court of Appeal leaves rights of light in the dark
Lauren explores the impact of no appeal for Beaumont v Florala.
Reem Al Mahroos
Frequently Asked Questions: Hotel Franchise Agreements
What is a franchise agreement and what are the differences between it and a Hotel Management Agreement (HMA)?
Lloyd v Google – Supreme Court to deliver judgment tomorrow (on 10 November 2021) – a reminder of the issues at stake
Black Swans freezing in BVI but not migrating
No service-out gateway for BVI Black Swan injunctions, but so what?