Louise Turner of Lexology reports, “Reuters appealed the decision. The basis of the appeal was that the Judge had erred by failing to conduct a proper balancing and proportionality exercise because he adopted (what the written grounds of appeal described as:) a ‘sliding scale of information by type or category’, with the disclosure of iniquity and hypocrisy and the correction of a misimpression by the claimant at the top. The complaint was that the Court’s starting point had been wrong, as the fact that there was no evidence of iniquity should not have been a significant factor in the balancing exercise conducted by the Court. According to Reuters, this error led the Court to give insufficient weight to a range of important matters of public interest.
“However the Court of Appeal disagreed with Reuters and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Judge at first instance made no error of principle or law. His determination that the balance came down in favour of the preservation of the confidentiality of Brevan Howard’s information and that the grant of an injunction was a proportionate exception to Reuters’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 were conclusions that he was entitled to reach.”
Read more here.
Wall Street Journal reporter Hannah Miao is moving to Singapore to cover the China economy.…
Financial Times reporter Simon Foy is now covering European banks. He has been covering accounting for the…
Debtwire, the leading provider of global fixed income news, analysis and data for more than…
Amber Kanwar, an anchor for BNN Bloomberg in Canada, is departing at the end of…
Moody's Ratings has promoted Yvette Kantrow to senior vice president and editor in chief. She has been…
Politico reporter Clare Fieseler is leaving the news organization to take on some ocean reporting projects. She…