‘Being a sex worker does not disqualify you from having a private life, a judge has said, as he granted an injunction to an escort who has been harassed online.’
Daily Telegraph, 19th December 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Judgment in the trial on liability in a group litigation claim brought by 5,518 employees of the supermarket chain WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC has been handed down today [1 December].’
5RB, 1st December 2017
Source: www.5rb.com
‘Ex-employers need to protect their confidential information. Some of the most potent weapons in the ex-employers’ armoury are orders for preservation, return and protection of confidential information. However, two recent cases provide a warning of the dangers of making assumptions in relation to applications for that relief, and show the stringent approach taken by the courts to orders for the protection of confidential information.’
Littleton Chambers, 29th June 2017
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Basildon Council has confirmed it is to appeal the imposition by the Information Commissioner of a £150,000 monetary penalty for publishing sensitive personal information about a family in planning application documents that were made publicly available online.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Eleven charities have been fined by the UK’s data watchdog for misusing information about millions of past donors to seek further funds.’
BBC News, 5th April 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A claimant who secured £2 in nominal damages has been told they face a substantial costs bill for turning down an earlier offer to settle.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 14th March 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘ A ruling by the High Court in London last month highlights the special rules that publishers can rely on under UK data protection law to defeat claims that they have processed personal data unlawfully.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th March 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘We have banged the drum on Panopticon to almost Phil Collins-like levels on theme of the growing utility of the Data Protection Act to media lawyers, but it would be foolish to pretend it can always produce an answer from nowhere in a traditional journalism context. The judgment in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2017] EWHC 328 (QB) reminds us of that.’
Panopticon, 6th March 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The “internet has not alone changed our lives but it has also changed our vocabulary. A tablet is no longer made of stone, a bit does not help guide a horse and a cookie is more likely to affect your privacy than alleviate the pangs of hunger between meals!” A lengthy Christmas cracker joke? No, the observations – in excellent ‘Dad-joke’ style – of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in CG v Facebook Ireland Ltd & McCloskey (MOR10142) (Morgan LCJ, Gillen & Weatherup LJJ) at [54].’
Panopticon, 6th January 2017
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘A rogue employee leaving their employer and taking with him confidential information such as a customer or pricing list can potentially cause significant damage to the ex-employer’s business.’
Littleton Chambers, 12th July 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘A claim for misuse of private information should be categorised as a tort for the purposes of service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Actor and comedian David Walliams has settled his phone-hacking damages claim. Walliams, who is best known for the sketch show Little Britain but is also an author and a trustee of Comic Relief, accepted substantial undisclosed damages and his legal costs from News Group Newspapers, publisher of the now-defunct News of the World.’
The Guardian, 16th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Leading authors have expressed their “grave concern” at a court ruling which has prevented a writer from publishing a book dealing with the sexual abuse he suffered as a child. The author’s ex-wife has obtained a temporary injunction stopping the memoir’s release until the issue has been decided at trial. She argued that reading it would cause their 11 year-old son, who suffers from a number of disabilities, severe psychological harm.’
Daily Telegraph, 16th October 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In an unusual privacy claim decided last week, the High Court dismissed the majority of a solicitor’s claims against a prostitute for misuse of private information, harassment, breach of confidence and breach of contract. The Court found for the Claimant in respect of one element of his privacy head of claim, it declined to award any damages but did grant him an injunction.’
RPC Privacy Law, 21st May 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘New UK legislation will ban the disclosure of aggregated patient medical records for commercial purposes, according to media reports.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A recent decision in the English High Court about internet cookie use has been making waves.’
Technology Law Update, 5th February 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 21
‘A claim for misuse of private information was a tort within the meaning of para 3.1(9) of Practice Direction 6B—Service out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A group of UK Google users called ‘Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking’ have claimed that the tracking and collation of information about of their internet usage by Google amounts to misuse of personal information, and a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Judge confirmed that misuse of personal information was a distinct tort. He also held that the English courts had jurisdiction to try the claims.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘I posted earlier on Tugendhat J’s judgment this morning in Vidal-Hall and Others v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB). The judgment is now available here – thanks as ever to Bailii.’
Panopticon, 16th January 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“The High Court has refused to throw out misuse of private information claims brought by celebrity Katie Price against her ex-husband Peter Andre, ex-manager Claire Powell, and ex-friend Jamelah Asmar.”
The Lawyer, 9th January 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024