6 February 2025
DEFAMATION (US) – Liam Payne’s father is sued for defamation by his son’s friend
A friend of the late One Direction singer Liam Payne is suing the star’s father in Florida for $10 million over comments he allegedly made to officials investigating his son’s death in Argentina.
Roger Nores claims that Geoff Payne defamed him by making declarations to Argentine officials which were “false, contained material omissions, and many parts were not based on personal knowledge.”
Nores claims Payne told investigators his son had been in Nores’ care "due to his addictions". Nores maintains he "never had a legal duty of care" towards the singer and was "never the caretaker of Liam". "Liam was an independent adult person who made all his own decisions," Nores’ lawsuit states.
Payne died after falling from a hotel balcony in Buenos Aires in October 2024. He was 31 years old. Five people have been charged over his death, including Nores, who is accused of manslaughter.
Nores denies any wrongdoing and says he plans to donate any proceeds from the defamation case to the singer’s son, whom he shares with Girls Aloud singer Cheryl. Geoff Payne has not yet commented.
DEFAMATION (US) – CNN settles libel claim after jury awards claimant $5 million in damages
CNN has settled a libel claim brought against it by a US Navy veteran called Zachary Young after a jury found the network defamed him and ordered it to pay him $5 million in compensatory damages.
Young had also been seeking punitive damages but the settlement meant that a hearing to determine punitive damages did not proceed. The terms of the settlement were not made public.
Young ran a private security firm in Afghanistan that helped to evacuate people from the country after it fell to the Taliban. He featured in a 2021 report that showed his face and described an alleged "black market" in which "desperate Afghans" were being "exploited" and faced "demands for exorbitant fees”.
Young claimed the report defamed him because his firm’s fees were paid by corporations and charities who wanted to support people at risk, not Afghans themselves, and he had actually discouraged people from contacting his firm.
CNN had issued a partial on-air apology in March 2022 in which it said it regretted using the term "black market." It stood by the rest of the report until the six person Florida jury reached its verdict.
Defamation trials are relatively rare in the USA because constitutional protections enjoyed by the media make it difficult for claimants to successfully sue for libel. This case is a reminder, however, of the significant damages that can be awarded when someone does bring a successful claim.
COPYRIGHT (UK) – Steve Coogan’s Baby Cow Productions defeats copyright claim
Comedian Harry Deansway has lost his copyright claim against Baby Cow Productions, the company founded by Steve Coogan, over allegations it copied his sitcom Shambles.
Deansway, also known as Joshua Rinkoff, claimed his copyright had been infringed by the use of elements of the sitcom, which he wrote and directed, in the series Live At The Moth Club (LATMC).
Deansway said producers working on LATMC would have seen some or all of his shows and “obviously” copied both the format and distinctive elements of the sitcom.
Baby Cow Productions denied copying and the judge dismissed the claim.
The main basis of the complaint appeared to be that both productions were set in an almost identical setting (a run-down comedy venue) and combined scenes of real comedians performing on stage with backstage scenes featuring a range of fictional characters.
The judge found that the format of Shambles was not a work which was capable of being protected by copyright as a dramatic work, but even if it was, the judge did not consider that there were grounds to draw an inference that LATMC was copied from Shambles.
Copyright law does not protect ideas, it protects the expression of ideas that have been given effect. So Monet would not have been able to prevent others from painting waterlilies, but he could have prevented others from copying his rendition of them.
TV show formats have been the subject of previous copyright claims, but have rarely been successful at trial. In order to be protectable as a dramatic work there need to be a number of clearly identified features which, taken together, distinguish the show from others of a similar type and those distinguishing features must be connected with each other in a coherent framework which can be repeatedly applied so as to enable the show to be reproduced in recognisable form.
In this case, Deansway pointed to various features and documents which he had written, for example setting out the "Shambles Philosophy," or basic plotlines for particular episodes, but the judge found that the pleaded features of Shambles only set out general ideas at a fairly high level and were inadequate to enable anyone to create, perform or reproduce an episode of the show and that they were not organised into a unified work which could be performed.
In addition, the setting of the show and its basic premise of blending fictional scenes with live stand-up were described in terms which were too broad to lead to copyright protection as a dramatic work, so the claim failed.
After the case, Deansway said he was “brave to sue” and says he now faces bankruptcy if Baby Cow Productions pursue him for their legal costs.
CONTEMPT (UK) – New family court transparency rules come into force in England and Wales
Journalists are now able to attend and report on most family proceedings in England and Wales.
From 27 January 2025, following a successful pilot scheme, accredited journalists are able report what they see and hear in court, speak to families about their ongoing cases and quote from key documents – provided they keep the families anonymous and the court grants a Transparency Order in the case.
Judges can refuse requests for Transparency Orders, but the presumption is that they will be granted unless there is a legitimate reason not to.
Transparency Orders will generally prohibit the identification of the children and families involved, foster carers, schools, hospitals, medical professionals etc, but they will not generally prohibit the identification of Local Authorities, NHS Trusts, legal representatives or judges.
Certain types of hearings will not be part of these new provisions, such as applications for adoption, placement and related proceedings.
Journalists will be expected to carry with them identification sufficient to enable court staff, or if necessary the court itself, to verify that they are accredited representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations. Various organisations are able to issue press passes.
The previous prohibition on the reporting of such proceedings led to widespread mistrust of the family courts. It is hoped that this change will make family proceedings more transparent and improve public understanding and confidence in the process.
In December 2024, following the tragic murder of Sara Sharif, the High Court granted journalists unprecedented access to see and publish confidential court documents that shed light on the decisions that the family courts made about Sara and her family. Controversially, however, the High Court ruled that the media could not name the three judges who oversaw the historical cases involving Sara.
This was challenged by the media and the Court of Appeal ruled on appeal that the judges could be named, stating that there was no jurisdiction to anonymise them and it had been wrong to do so.
However, given concerns for the safety of the three judges, when lifting the prohibition on identifying them, the court postponed the order for seven days to allow time for the Courts and Tribunal Service to put appropriate protective measures in place. The judges have now been identified.
As explained above, under the new rules, when a Transparency Order is made there will generally be no prohibition on identifying judges involved in proceedings.
Abbas Media Law is a boutique law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.