The UK High Court recently held that a claimant, who was criticized in the comments section of his own blog, cannot sue for defamation, since he could have deleted the comment but failed to do so.
The case Carrie v. Tolkien [2009] EWHC 29 (QB) (15 Jan. 2009) relates to allegations of sexual abuse by Father Tolkein, the son of the famous author.
The court pointed out that the plaintiff could have removed the offending comments posted on his own blog, which he saw four and a half hours after they first appeared but did not do so, and dismissed claims for defamation damages.
The plaintiff Carrie, is the author of a self-published book in which he claimed to have been sexually abused by Father John Tolkien, the son of writer JRR Tolkien. Carrie created a blog in 2007 and published a post under a pseudonym promoting his Web site and his book. Consequently JRR Tolkien’s great grandson, Royd Tolkien, posted a comment on the site claiming that Carrie was a fraud who was attempting to victimize the Tolkien family. Carrie wrote a denial of the comments but did not remove them.
Posted by Dr Michael Factor 
Judge Steven Adler, President of the Israel Labor Court of Appeals has ruled on a dispute between a patent attorney and a firm employing the patent attorney on the basis of a percentage of billing. Whilst not rejecting the system out of hand, Adler was highly critical of it. 
In the words of Judge Floyd: “I have come to the conclusion that the balance of injustice in this case requires me to refuse the injunction. It seems to me that, in this particular case, the likely damage to SML and L’Oréal if an injunction is wrongly granted outweighs the damage to NBL if it is refused. Whilst NBL may ultimately prevail at the trial, it seems to me that an injunction and damages at that stage, though far from perfect as remedies, are more likely to be able to restore them to their rightful position than an award of damages under the cross undertaking to SML. The effect of an injunction wrongly granted against SML would be to cause a massive disruption to their business, and probably cause them to abandon use of the brand altogether. Against this I regard the likelihood of actual confusion between the products in the market place in the form in which they are currently presented as minimal. In coming to this conclusion I have not needed to attach any weight to an attack by SML on the ability of NBL to pay. Nevertheless, even though an offer to fortify the cross undertaking in damages by deposit of up to £1 million with NBL’s solicitors was made, I was not persuaded that if an injunction was granted, NBL’s asset position is such that the award of damages on the cross undertaking would provide full protection to SML and L’Oréal”.
