Corporate reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights

Acheson, D. J.

doi:10.1080/17577632.2018.1464536

Journal of Media Law

2018

DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2018.1464536

|View full text |Cite

Corporate reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights

D. J. Acheson

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2019

2020

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada

Coe

2020

Legal stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of defamation law to protect corporate reputation is controversial. Australia, Canada and England and Wales have been at the centre of this debate, as although their defamation laws share many common characteristics, they adopt distinct approaches to allowing companies to sue in defamation. Consequently, in all three jurisdictions defamation law remains a cause of action that is relied upon by companies to protect their reputations. The primary concern of this paper is the efficacy of these approaches,1 particularly in light of the reforms made to Australia's defamation laws, adopted in 2020, that further restrict the right of corporations to sue in defamation. Ultimately, it argues that the Australian and English and Welsh approaches disproportionately disadvantage companies, particularly small ones, whereas the Canadian approach overprotects corporate reputation. It concludes by offering an alternative way forward that, although not perfect, provides a better balance between the interests.

show abstract

An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada

Coe

2020

Legal stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Select Committees: Understanding and Regulating the Emergence of the ‘Topical Inquiry’

Prescott

2019

Parliamentary Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reforms to departmental select committees have enhanced their authority and independence within the House of Commons. Some committees have used this enhanced profile to investigate the actions of specific individuals or private corporations or organisations. Typically, this is in response to media reports that allege some form of wrongdoing. As the standing orders of the House of Commons empower committees to scrutinise government departments and agencies, this is a departure from established practices. This article examines the emergence of these ‘topical inquiries’, determining the features that indicate their value. In particular, topical inquiries that fill an ‘accountability gap’ are the most valuable. An accountability gap arises when other forms of scrutiny or accountability are merely performative or have failed. When conducting a topical inquiry, committees are underpinned by parliamentary privilege, meaning that those subject to criticism have little opportunity to respond regardless of any reputational, commercial or other damage caused. Consequently, if thought a desirable function of Parliament, then topical inquiries require enhanced processes to ensure procedural fairness and to address potential human rights concerns. This would require amending the standing orders specifying topical inquiries as a type of inquiry that a select committee could pursue, complying with this enhanced process.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Corporate reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada

An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada

Select Committees: Understanding and Regulating the Emergence of the ‘Topical Inquiry’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About