The plaintiff claimed he had been defamed on the website www.rate-your-solicitor.com. He successfully sought interlocutory orders under s.33 of the Defamation Act 2009 against certain defendants prohibiting publication of the defamatory statements. The court noted that, since the arrival of the internet, judicial hesitation in granting interlocutory orders of this type should be eased. One of the defendants was the host of the website, Dotster, located in the USA. Dotster had not made an appearance in the case and the court made a final order in default of appearance.
The plaintiff had wrongly been identified as the taxi fare evader shown in a video posted on various websites. The judgment primarily concerns the issue of whether the plaintiff could be named on newspaper websites reporting the court case and the court ordered that he could be named. The court noted that it had earlier granted interim orders that social media sites such as YouTube and Google should remove the video and provide the identities of web users who had defamed the plaintiff. The orders regarding identities of web users were granted applying the UK tort case of Norwich Pharmacal v Customs & Excise 1973 UKHL 6. According to media reports, there have been further developments in this case in 2013 and 2014.
Record companies sought orders (1) restraining UPC, an ISP, from making available to the public copies of sound recordings which breach copyright and (2) requiring UPC to block access to the Pirate Bay site. The court found that s.40(4) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 only covered “removal” of infringing material and therefore an injunction could not be granted. Charleton J. also reconsidered his previous decision in EMI v Eircom 2009 IEHC 411 (see below), in which he granted an order requiring an ISP to block access to the Pirate Bay, and stated that his previous decision in that case had been incorrect. Following this case, s.40 of the 2000 Act was amended by Statutory Instrument in 2012 (see above).
This litigation concerned the validity of the data retention requirements imposed on ISPs and telephony providers. This case led to a decision by the CJEU (Grand Chamber) that the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) was invalid, Case 293-12, Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.
Record companies had reached a settlement with a large ISP (Eircom) instituting a graduated response system. Charleton J. held that the settlement did not breach data protection laws as IP addresses in the hands of the record companies which do not identify subscribers are not “personal data”. He said that copyright is flagrantly violated by music theft and the sanction of terminating access is not excessive. Eircom’s terms and conditions stated that copyright must not be infringed and subscribers have agreed to these terms.