This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/23/mirror-publisher-phone-hacking-damages
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Mirror publisher's challenge to £1.2m phone-hacking damages rejected | Mirror publisher's challenge to £1.2m phone-hacking damages rejected |
(35 minutes later) | |
The supreme court has rejected a challenge by the publisher of the Daily and Sunday Mirror against the landmark £1.2m in damages awarded to eight phone-hacking victims, including actor Sadie Frost and ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne. | |
Mirror Group Newspapers took its case to the supreme court after an earlier bid was rejected in the court of appeal last December. | Mirror Group Newspapers took its case to the supreme court after an earlier bid was rejected in the court of appeal last December. |
The supreme court said on Wednesday it had refused the publisher’s application to appeal. | The supreme court said on Wednesday it had refused the publisher’s application to appeal. |
Related: Daily Mirror owners must pay £1.2m to celebrity phone-hacking victims | Related: Daily Mirror owners must pay £1.2m to celebrity phone-hacking victims |
“The court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law,” it said. | “The court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law,” it said. |
The damages were awarded by the judge, Mr Justice Mann, in May last year to a total of eight victims, the largest award of damages made by the courts for a breach of a person’s privacy. | The damages were awarded by the judge, Mr Justice Mann, in May last year to a total of eight victims, the largest award of damages made by the courts for a breach of a person’s privacy. |
They also included former BBC executive Alan Yentob, Coronation Street actor Shobna Gulati, flight attendant Lauren Alcorn, TV producer Robert Ashworth and EastEnders actors Lucy Taggart and Shane Richie. | They also included former BBC executive Alan Yentob, Coronation Street actor Shobna Gulati, flight attendant Lauren Alcorn, TV producer Robert Ashworth and EastEnders actors Lucy Taggart and Shane Richie. |
Frost was awarded £260,250 and Gascoigne £188,250 in compensation from Trinity Mirror. | Frost was awarded £260,250 and Gascoigne £188,250 in compensation from Trinity Mirror. |
Ashworth, a former Coronation Street producer who told the court that phone hacking had ruined his media career and his marriage to soap actor Tracy Shaw, was awarded £201,250 for the invasion of his privacy. | Ashworth, a former Coronation Street producer who told the court that phone hacking had ruined his media career and his marriage to soap actor Tracy Shaw, was awarded £201,250 for the invasion of his privacy. |
Taggart received a £157,250 payout, while Richie got £155,000, Gulati got £117,500, Yentob was awarded £85,000 and Alcorn £78,500. | Taggart received a £157,250 payout, while Richie got £155,000, Gulati got £117,500, Yentob was awarded £85,000 and Alcorn £78,500. |
All of the awards were higher than those handed out in a previous privacy case. | All of the awards were higher than those handed out in a previous privacy case. |
The judge in his original ruling said phone hacking was “part of a large-scale pattern of the unlawful obtaining of information” by journalists at the newspaper group. | The judge in his original ruling said phone hacking was “part of a large-scale pattern of the unlawful obtaining of information” by journalists at the newspaper group. |
He said “people whose voicemails were hacked for so often and so long, had very significant parts of their private lives exposed, and then reported on, are entitled to significant compensation”. | He said “people whose voicemails were hacked for so often and so long, had very significant parts of their private lives exposed, and then reported on, are entitled to significant compensation”. |