Morgan is understood to have taken issue with an article published in the newspaper in September 2011 which accused her of being a fraud. The article, which ran under the heading “What a load of crystal balls!”, alleges that Morgan was pretending to have psychic powers to scam vulnerable audiences.

The writers of the article went on to accuse Morgan of wearing a hidden earpiece, through which she received and repeated instructions from members of her team.

In the lawsuit, filed at the High Court recently, Morgan says that the article defamed her reputation as well as causing her substantial distress, embarrassment and hurt. She is seeking £150,000 in damages from the owner of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers, which will need to rely on its professional indemnity insurance if the TV psychic wins her case.

Even though at the time the story went out, it was widely reported in many other national newspapers, Morgan has named only Associated Newspapers as a defendant in her lawsuit.

A report in the Guardian claims that Netflix’s investors are suing because they believe the management of the company to have misled shareholders as to the health of the business, whilst at the same time cashing in $90 million of stock whilst the price was at a record high.

In the lawsuit, which was filed recently in the US state of California, it is alleged:

“Defendants’ statements about Netflix’s ability to secure content and maintain profit margins were crucial to investors’ evaluation of Netflix.

“Rather than fully disclose the devastating cost increases which were then threatening Netflix’s entire business, defendants talked about its ability to grow. Specifically, defendants concealed negative trends in Netflix’s business.”

It is not known what damages, if any, the investors involved in the lawsuit are seeking, but if it should lose the case when it goes to court, Netflix is likely to have to use its professional indemnity insurance to cover its costs.

The case centres on two articles which were published in British tabloid the Daily Mail back in March 2010, in which it was claimed that Morrissey was banned from a bar in France due to drunken and rowdy behaviour.

In one of the articles, it was stated that the owner of a bar near the actor’s holiday home in France had put up a poster behind the bar featuring Morrissey’s picture and the warning “do not serve this man”.

Although the editors of the newspaper later apologised to Morrissey, after he had proved that the allegations were untrue, the actor made the decision to take his case to the High Court.

Morrissey, 49, has now been awarded what has been described as a substantial amount in compensation from Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail. The organisation will have to use its professional indemnity insurance to pay compensation to Morrissey.

The actor, who is best known for starring in comedy show Men Behaving Badly and for providing the voice to animated character Bob the Builder, is said to be “very pleased” with the outcome of the case.

The affected product is the Antilop self-assembly high chair, which sells for around £10.99. It comes with a safety belt attached to the plastic chair, and Ikea has warned that in some of the high chairs, this belt can come “open unexpectedly”.

Ikea is understood to have received around eight complaints about the defective chairs so far, and three children have sustained minor injuries because of the faulty safety belts. The company could need to rely on its product liability insurance if any of the parents of these injured children decide to file lawsuits for compensation.

In a statement, Ikea explained the problem with the chairs and reassured parents, saying:

“The high chair belt can open unexpectedly in use, creating a fall hazard.

“Ikea has received eight reports of belt opening, including three resulting in minor injury when a child fell from the high chair.

“No other high chairs are affected. Ikea apologises for any inconvenience this may cause.”

The case came about after TiVo filed lawsuits against two other companies – EchoStar and Dish Network – over a patent relating to time warp technology.

The suit against AT&T was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas back in August 2009, with TiVo claiming that the company breached three of its patents relating to the way the user stores programs at the same time as viewing or reviewing others.

AT&T has now agreed to settle the case for a total of $215 million in damages, which the company will have to pay using its professional indemnity insurance, if it has any. TiVo has said that initially, AT&T will make a payment of $51 million, followed by quarterly payments until June 2018.

In exchange for all litigation to be dropped and for a cross licensing deal to be set up between the two companies, AT&T must also agree to pay an additional license fee every month if its DVR user base grows beyond a certain size.

Driveflight, a company based in Glenrothes but which has karting tacks in a number of different locations, is being sued by a woman over an incident at its Aberdeen Kartstart circuit.

Craft and design teacher Julie Markie claims she was checking on a pupil at the side of the karting track when another pupil drove into the pit area at speed, entering through an open gate. She suffered a number of injuries to her feet, ankles and legs as a result of the incident, and is also said to have developed post-traumatic stress disorder.

According to court papers, Ms Markie is suing Driveflight for £1 million in compensation, which the company will have to pay using its public liability insurance if it loses the case. However, Driveflight has stated that it plans to vigorously defend itself in court, and in documents lodged by its solicitors, the company said:

“Any incident involving the pursuer was the full fault of the pupil.”

Mr Whyte is understood to have consulted Glasgow law firm Bannatyne Kirkwood France (BKF) and Co. to start legal proceedings against BBC Scotland. He is claiming that the documentary, entitled Rangers: The Inside Story, made “unfounded and defamatory allegations” against him in relation to alleged criminality in his past dealings.

Under Scottish Law, Mr Whyte has up to three years from the date the documentary was aired to launch a lawsuit for defamation of character.

In response to Mr Whyte’s claims, a spokesperson for BBC Scotland said:

“We stand by the investigation which was produced according to our rigorous editorial standards on fairness, accuracy and impartiality.

“As the programme makes clear, Craig Whyte took the opportunity to respond to questions which were put to him during the course of the production.”

If the case does go to court, BBC Scotland may need to rely on its professional insurance in order to fight the case.

Ceri Tonkinson was riding at the Cosmeton Country Park back in July 2007 when the incident occurred. Instructor Stephen Davies, from the Penarth Downside Riding School, was riding up behind her but she asked him to wait before overtaking her so that she could settle her horse, which had only recently been broken in. However, Mr Davies carried on and overtook her, causing Ms Tonkinson’s horse to react badly and throw her to the floor.

As a result of the incident, Ms Tonkinson suffered serious injuries, including breaking her pelvis and her back. She sought accident compensation from the riding school, which is likely to have public liability insurance or another type of professional insurance in place for such cases.

A legal team working for Ms Tonkinson were able to argue that the horse riding school was legally responsible for the negligence showed by their employee, and she was duly awarded a total of £37,000 in compensation.

In the lawsuit, which was filed earlier this month in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, Juniper Networks claims that although the technology used to create its next-generation firewalls was invented by Palo Alto Networks founders, the patents officially belong to Juniper.

The founders of Palo Alto Networks were originally executives from Juniper Networks, who left the company back in 2005 to set up their own competing firm.

Juniper Networks, which is based in Sunnyvale in California, states in the complaint:

“Juniper focuses on delivering breakthrough innovations for our customers. As a leading high-performance networking company, we will take every appropriate measure to defend and protect our innovation,”

According to the lawsuit, Juniper is seeking an order to prevent misuse of its inventions, and a jury trial. The company is also said to be seeking unspecified damages from Palo Alto Networks, which will need to rely on its professional indemnity insurance to cover its costs if it loses the case.

Bryant Moore, a science fiction screenwriter, is claiming that Cameron based Avatar on two of his own scripts, for projects entitled Descendants: The Pollination and Aquatica. He pointed out that there were so many similarities between his scripts and Cameron’s film for the two not to be linked.

As well as suing Cameron for theft of intellectual property, Moore is also planning to take legal action against Lightstorm Entertainment, which is the director’s production company, and certain executives at 20th Century Fox.

According to the entertainment website TMZ, Bryant is seeking a huge $2.5 billion in damages in the lawsuit, which all parties will have to pay using their professional indemnity insurance if they lose the case.

Another copyright infringement lawsuit involving Avatar was launched against James Cameron earlier this month, by plaintiff Eric Ryder. Ryder claimed that he had approached executives at Lightstorm with the idea for an “environmentally themed 3D epic” around ten years before Avatar was made, back in 1999.