‘While it is often assumed that human rights are reserved for human beings, companies are legal persons having rights in law and do enjoy the protections afforded by human rights legislation.’
OUT-LAW.com, 24th March 2025
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘Apple will challenge a UK government demand to access encrypted customer data at a high court hearing in London on Friday. The appeal will be considered by the investigatory powers tribunal, which investigates claims the domestic intelligence services have acted unlawfully.’
The Guardian, 14th March 2025
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Apple’s appeal against a UK government demand to be able to access its customers’ most highly encrypted data is set to be considered at a secret hearing at the High Court on Friday, the BBC understands.’
BBC News, 12th March 2025
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Earlier last month, The Washington Post reported that Apple, a technology company known for emphasizing privacy as one of its key selling points, had been ordered by the U.K. government to create a back door that would enable the retrieval of all content uploaded by any Apple user worldwide to iCloud. iCloud is a cloud storage service that is encrypted by default, and its users may also opt in to the use of end-to-end encryption, an additional layer of security ensuring that only the user (and not even Apple) can access the stored data.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th March 2025
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘As Labour is embroiled in a scandal over leaked messages from a WhatsApp group, some people have been left wondering about their rights on the app.’
The Independent, 10th February 2025
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Prince Harry has been told that he and fellow claimants taking legal action against the Daily Mail publishers must not spend more than £4.1m on costs – around £14m less than they were proposing.’
The Independent, 24th January 2025
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘White mail system handles “highly sensitive personal data” and people not told it is processing their information.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2025
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld the striking out a representative action for misuse of private information. The judgment confirms the correct approach to identifying whether all claimants have the necessary ‘same interest’ in order to pursue a representative action. It highlights the risk that stripping back a claim to its lowest common denominator so as to satisfy the ‘same interest’ requirement may result in the pared down claim having no real prospect of success. Indeed, the Court of Appeal concluded that “a representative class claim for misuse of private information is always going to be very difficult to bring”.’
Henderson Chambers, 23rd December 2025
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The Duke of Sussex has settled his high court legal action at the eleventh hour against the publisher of the Sun, News Group Newspapers (NGN).’
The Guardian, 22nd January 2025
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Lady Hale discusses with Rosalind English the development of the right to privacy, reflects in her career in academia and the Law Commission, and ponders on the position of women in the legal profession today.’
Law Pod UK, 20th January 2025
Source: audioboom.com
‘Unless there is a sudden and staggering plot twist, Prince Harry’s legal battle against British tabloids for allegedly unlawfully intruding into his life reaches its most important moment on Tuesday when his claims against The Sun and the long-closed News of the World, come to trial.’
BBC News, 19th January 2025
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Privacy is regarded as a fundamental right that is protected in multiple and varying ways. This cannot be said for privacy of the dead. This article considers the importance of post-mortem privacy and reviews the law of privacy and post-mortem privacy in England and Wales including under the ECHR. It also considers medical confidentiality and whether common arguments that pertain to the dead (e.g. organ donation, burial, testamentary dispositions and posthumous copyright) lend support to post-mortem privacy arguments. This article introduces the concept of post-mortem privacy as envisioned by Harbinja and Edwards, and discusses whether the dead can be legal rights holders with a focus on the Interest Theory of rights. This allows for the discussion of post-mortem theories and harm. It concludes by supplementing Donnelly and McDonagh’s theories on ante-mortem anxiety and Davey’s theory on chilling effects with the jurisprudence of the ECHR to create a new legal right.’
Journal of Media Law, 6th January 2025
Source: www.tandfonline.com
‘An order made by a High Court judge to restrain the naming of judges who sat in proceedings concerning the late Sara Sharif, who was murdered by her father and stepmother, infringed upon the principle of open justice ‘in a manner that is without any known precedent’, the Court of Appeal heard today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 14th January 2025
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘2024 was billed to be the year of the first ‘robust and comprehensive’ UK statutory review of the extent of journalism’s compliance with data protection law and good practice, a formal appraisal which was (and is) meant to become a clear ‘part of the media landscape’ as reformed by the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018 in the wake of the general/first part of the Leveson Inquiry. In sum, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was obliged to assess and report on the extent of journalistic compliance with data protection law and good practice during the first four years of the new regime (as well as over subsequent five year periods). Reflecting the admittedly very challenging nature of this task, the ICO also gained unprecedented and far-reaching powers (Sch. 17) which enabled it to compel the provision of relevant information with only 24 hours’ notice (para. 2) and even to assess activity on site through assessment notices (para. 3). Unfortunately, as this blog will explicate, the ICO did not use any of these powers or undertake a Review which can be seen as either robust or comprehensive, produced an Outcomes Report which failed to come to any definitive view as to the extent of journalistic compliance and also elected not to proactively publicise its Review Report in any way at the time of its release.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th December 2024
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Britain’s data protection regulator has labelled Google as “irresponsible” for allowing advertisers to track customers’ digital “fingerprints”, amid fears even privacy-conscious users will find the online monitoring technique difficult to block.’
The Guardian, 19th December 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Prismall v Google UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1516. This was not a class action but a representative action, pursuant to what is now Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 19.8, for the tort of misuse of private information against the respondents Google UK Limited (Google) and DeepMind Technologies Limited (DeepMind). The action was on behalf of Mr Prismall and a class of persons said to number approximately 1.6 million.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th December 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘HMRC v The Taxpayer (Appellant) and Times Media Limtied and News Group Newspapers Limited and PA Media Tax Policy Associates Limited (Third Parties) [2024] UKUT 00364 (TCC). This case concerns an application for taxpayer anonymity in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The taxpayer, who had initially appealed against HMRC’s denial of certain tax deductions, sought to keep their identity confidential during the proceedings and in the final decision. This request was opposed by HMRC and several media organizations, including Times Media Limited and News Group Newspapers Limited.’
33 Bedford Row, 22nd November 2024
Source: www.33bedfordrow.co.uk
‘The publisher of the Daily Mail has won a court battle after arguing that its human rights were breached by a requirement for it to pay “success fees” to lawyers representing people it had paid damages to.’
The Guardian, 12th November 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Significant changes to data protection law have been proposed by the UK government, including to rules relevant to the use of AI systems in decision-making processes and to the use of data for the purposes of scientific research, as well as new rules aimed at liberalising data held by public sector organisations and businesses alike.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th October 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025