Search
Contact

Our clerks’ room is open between:

8.30am – 6.30pm

Outside of these hours and in cases of urgency, please contact
Paul Bunting on 07971 843023 or
Darren Madle on 07769 714399.

Clerk contacts

Richard Sheehan

Deputy Senior Clerk

020 7420 9503
Oliver Ventura

First Junior Clerk

020 7420 9505
Aron Hanks

Second Junior Clerk

020 7420 9506
Archie Conners

Third Junior Clerk

020 7420 9507

Our clerks’ room is open between:

8.30am – 6.30pm

Outside of these hours and in cases of urgency, please contact
Paul Bunting on 07971 843023 or
Darren Madle on 07769 714399.

Clerk contacts

Richard Sheehan

Deputy Senior Clerk

020 7420 9503
Oliver Ventura

First Junior Clerk

020 7420 9505
Aron Hanks

Second Junior Clerk

020 7420 9506
Archie Conners

Third Junior Clerk

020 7420 9507

Norwich Pharmacal Applications – How “mixed up” must a respondent be and how frank must an applicant be? 

The judgment in the Part 8 Claim of Davidoff & others v Google LLC [2023] EWHC 1958 (KB) runs to 113 paragraphs over 33 pages. Much of the judgment focuses on the problems faced by the Claimants in making good the intended claims for libel and malicious falsehood, but there are two specific aspects worthy of wider consideration. The first is the explicit statement by the Judge that the Claim engaged the duty of full and frank disclosure; the second is the consideration of what degree of involvement meant that the Defendant was “mixed up in the wrongdoing”.

Please click here to read the full article by William McCormick KC.