And without sophisticated radiation measuring equipment, the exposures are invisible.
Warby QC and P.
Tomlinson QC and L. The claim brought by Prince Charles related to eight hand written journals kept by Prince Charles to record his impressions and views in the course of overseas tours made by him between and Copies of these were provided to the Newspaper, via an intermediary, by an employee of Prince Charles in breach of her contract of employment.
The Newspaper had published substantial extracts from the Journal in the Mail on Sunday on 13 November The Newspaper denies that the content of the Journal was confidential. Prince Charles alleges that the publication of the extracts from the Journal interfered with his right to respect for his private life and his correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention, so that it constituted in modern parlance a breach of privacy.
The Newspaper denies this but alleges, in the alternative, that any interference with this right was justified under Article 8 2 as necessary to protect the rights of the Newspaper and the public under Article Prince Charles accepts that the relief that he has claimed amounts to a restriction on the Newspaper's right of freedom of expression under Article 10, but alleges that this restriction is justified under Article 10 2 as necessary to protect his right to privacy, his copyright and to prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence.
Blackburne J concluded that, so far as the Journal was concerned, there was little relevant issue of fact and, insofar as there was any such issue, the Newspaper had no real prospect of succeeding on it.
There were, however, substantial issues as to the application of the principles of the developing law of breach of privacy to the facts of this case. These issues were explored before the judge in a depth which was not typical of the ordinary proceeding under Part Thus the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of Prince Charles extended to 44 pages and that submitted on behalf of the Newspaper to 30 pages.
The hearing lasted 3 days and the judgment was 44 pages in length. It seems to us that what the judge did, in effect, was to hold that there was no issue of fact in relation to the Journal that called for trial, so that disclosure and oral evidence were unnecessary, and to proceed to try the remaining issues.
The judge resolved those issues in favour of Prince Charles. He entertained, however, full argument as to why those issues should be resolved in favour of the Newspaper and, had he been persuaded by that argument, would have been in a position to give final judgment against Prince Charles.
The preparations made for this appeal were appropriate for determination by this court of the substantive merits of the case, insofar as it relates to the Journal. The skeleton submitted on behalf of the Newspaper is 33 pages in length and that submitted on behalf of Prince Charles is 44 pages in length.
Three files containing copies of 42 authorities were prepared for the hearing. In these circumstances we have been in no doubt as to how to give effect to the overriding objective as set out in CPR Part 1.
Our first task must be to consider whether the judge was correct to conclude that there was no relevant issue of fact that required a trial. If he was not, then his order must be set aside and a trial ordered.Summary judgment was given in respect of one of these, the journal that related to the Prince's visit to Hong Kong between 23 June and 3 July (`the Journal'), when the Colony was handed over to the Republic of China.
Lawtext Publishing Ltd. publishing specialist legal journals. Environmental Law and Management Makeup: Six issues plus index per year Current: Issue 1 Volume 30 Format: A4 ISSN: Back Issues: Back issues available from vol 12  issue 5. Scientology is a truly unique contemporary religion—the only major religion to emerge in the 20th century.
Scientology is fully developed, by definition of religion, in its theology, religious practice and organization.
Latest breaking news, including politics, crime and celebrity. Find stories, updates and expert opinion. Home > Judgments > archive. Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman  EWCA Civ Interlocutory appeal and cross-appeal in ancillary relief proceedings relating to Hildebrand rules. HRH Princess of Wales Princess Diana + HRH Prince of Wales Duke of Cornwall Duke of Rothesay + HRH Prince Charles + Gerald 6th Duke of Sutherland Marquess of Stafford Earl Gower Sealed Records “True Story Behind The Myth” *** THE ROYAL ARCHIVES * LORD LYON KING OF ARMS * COURT OF THE LYON KING EDINBURGH * LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY .