What does the first judicial interpretation of the serious harm threshold tell us?
By Polly Wilkins
Earlier this year, the Sunday Mirror published an article that claimed that disreputable landlords were making money from tenants on social security benefits. Midland Heart Housing Association and its chief executive officer were cited in the article, where it was said: ‘Three more homes in the road where residents claim they have been portrayed as scroungers and lowlife by Channel 4 are owned by the Midland Heart Housing Association. Its chief Ruth Cooke, 45, earns £179,000 a year and lives in a large house…’
Two preliminary issues were heard: the meaning of the words complained of and whether serious harm had been caused or was likely to be caused.
The process for determining meaning has not changed under the new act. Mr Justice Bean did not accept either party’s pleaded meanings and adopted a middle ground — that Midland Heart was one of the well-off landlords letting to people in receipt of housing benefits, thereby making money from their misery, and that Ms Cooke was personally responsible for this conduct of Midland Heart and had become rich from it. It was this meaning that the judge then had to apply the serious harm test to…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Schillings briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Schillings
Briefings from Schillings
The General Council of a well-respected company recently asked: how do you measure reputation risk? With no singular guidance on the issue, this is a question that many organisations struggle with.
When Sony announced film The Interview would not be released at all, it marked the first time that a film has been withdrawn purely because of a hack attack
Analysis from The Lawyer
ABSs arrived just two years ago but their impact on the profession is already deep. In a pre-Awards debate, our shortlisters discuss the rough and smooth of the transition