Latest from Inforrm's Blog
Case Note: EBIN Europe ltd v Kwangho Shin: defamation law in the workplace – Dhillon Purnell-Mullick
On 27 April 2026, Master Sullivan ordered that the claimant’s slander claim in the case of Ebin Europe Limited v Kwangho Shin (KB-2025-003736) should be struck out on the ground that the statements alleged to have made were not defamatory of the claimant company.
What was the background?
The defendant was employed as a warehouse
Claptrap: Why the case for a tougher Anti-SLAPP law is deeply flawed – Paul Wragg
Last week the New Statesman carried an article entitled ‘The Slapp trap: As media lawyers battle to keep Britain’s libel industry lucrative, hopes for reform are fading.’ It claims that Britain needs tougher anti-SLAPP laws. The article contains numerous errors and omissions, some more serious than others.
In this blogpost, I will focus only on
The Office for Students vs the University of Sussex. Part Five, Section 28 in Reverse – Julian Petley
Beyond the specific issue of speech which may (or may not) be protected under Article 10 read in its entirety lies a wider problem, and that is that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, particularly as interpreted and enforced by the OfS, may operate as a kind of reverse Section 28. This was a
Law and Media Round Up – 25 May 2026
The Easter legal term ended on Friday 22 May 2026. The last term of the legal year, the Trinity Term, will begin on Tuesday 2 June 2026 and end on Friday 31 July 2026.
A libel claim brought against local publisher Mill Media over an investigation into entrepreneur Claudio De Giovanni was thrown out after
The Office for Students vs the University of Sussex. Part Four, Lessons from Conchita Wurst – Julian Petley
Critics of the three-step process laid out in RA24 argue that the proportionality test needs to inform each step and not just the final one. Such critics include Wonkhe, Professor Naomi-Waltham Smith of Oxford University and James Murray, legal director at Doyle Clayton solicitors. In order to illustrate why this is necessary in order
The Office for Students vs the University of Sussex. Part Three, Free Speech Absolutism – Julian Petley
Given the manner in which the OfS conceived of and carried out its duties in relation to Sussex’s conditions of registration (E1), it is perhaps unsurprising that it reached the Final Decision that it did. However, this does not augur well for how it is going to conceive of and carry out its duties
The Office for Students vs the University of Sussex. Part Two, Misunderstanding Freedom of Speech within the Law – Julian Petley
The notion of freedom of speech within the law played a key role in this case, and in her judgment Lieven J observed that “there is an immediate question as to what ‘freedom of speech within the law’ means and how it relates to the need to undertake a proportionality balance within Article 10 of
Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University: Newsletter, 21 May 2026
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
It’s graduation time: a moment of
The Office for Students vs the University of Sussex. Part One: Sending a Strong Signal – Julian Petley
In March 2025, the Office for Students (OfS) fined the University of Sussex £585,000, the highest amount ever levied by the regulator. This was largely because after a three-and-a-half-year investigation, which the University’s vice-chancellor Professor Sasha Roseneil described as “Kafkaesque”, the OfS had decreed that the University’s Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement (hereafter the