‘One of the great benefits of modern society is the amount of information available to us everyday. Much of that information is now stored electronically. However, collecting a lot of information together creates risks. Big data showcases the potential utility of amassing information in bulk, but we need to be wary of the possible threat to our right to privacy.’
RightsInfo, 16th April 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The Supreme Court has refused MGN Limited permission to appeal the decision in Representative Claimants -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 – the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the appropriate level of damages in eight phone-hacking ‘test cases’. This decision itself was an unsuccessful appeal by MGN against the High Court decision in Gulatti & Ors v MGN Limited [2015] EWHC 1482.’
4 KBW, 8th April 2016
Source: www.4kbw.net
Speech by Lord Neuberger, President of The Supreme Court
British Irish Commercial Bar Association Law Forum, 21st April 2016
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘The question of whether recoverable success fees in privacy cases are incompatible with publishers’ rights to freedom of expression is set to go before the Supreme Court, following a High Court ruling.’
Litigation Futures, 21st April 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Britain’s intelligence agencies have been secretly collecting bulk personal data since the late 1990s and privately admit they have gathered information on people who are “unlikely to be of intelligence or security interest”.’
The Guardian, 21st April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘An injunction banning the media in England and Wales from reporting the identity of a married celebrity who allegedly took part in a threesome has been lifted.’
BBC News, 18th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘It has long been clear that, so far as the common law is concerned, there is no neat dividing line between information which is private and that which is public. Thus, depending on the circumstances, information relating to an individual’s private life which has entered the public domain may yet engage privacy rights (see further e.g. McKennitt v Ash [2005] EWHC 303 (QB) and Green Corns v Claverley [2005] 958 (QB) and Rocknroll v News Group [2013] EWHC 24 (Ch)). However, what is the position where, notwithstanding that an injunction restrains the publication of the information domestically, the information is being extensively published and shared online elsewhere around the world?’
Panopticon, 18th April 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Attempts to silence a blogger who published the identities of a celebrity couple at the centre of a UK press injunction appear to have backfired, as newspapers in Canada and Sweden published details of the story.’
The Guardian, 13th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The EU’s highest court will hear arguments on Tuesday concerning the validity of UK data retention laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘As a Scottish newspaper publishes details of a sex scandal, when does a legal fight to ensure privacy become a pointless exercise to restrict free speech?’
The Guardian, 11th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘I was one of the victims of unscrupulous newspapers that David Cameron pledged to protect in the of wake of the Leveson report. Let’s ensure he keeps his promises.’
The Guardian, 6th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A leading media lawyer has claimed that celebrities have been given carte blanche to use their children to prevent stories about their sex lives being published, after a court upheld an injunction against the Sun on Sunday.’
The Guardian, 6th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation. The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a “betrayal”.’
BBC News, 6th April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Following three trials of former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’s congregations on charges of historic sex abuse the Charity Commission decided to initiate a statutory inquiry relating to a leading Jehovah’s Witness charity’s safeguarding policy regarding vulnerable beneficiaries in particular children, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, and to order the charity to produce a wide range of documents, under section 52 of the Act, even though none of those accused was connected with the charity. .The applicants, the charity and its trustees, sought judicial review of those decisions, on the grounds that (i) the commission had acted disproportionately by commencing an inquiry the scope of which was vague and undefined and by interfering with the applicants’ Convention rights, and had thereby breached its duty to act fairly so that the decision was irrational; and (ii) the scope of the production order was disproportionate in that information was sought of a personal and sensitive nature, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was furthermore in breach of the Convention rights of individuals affected. The judge in refusing permission to proceed with the judicial review clain held that the applicants had an effective statutory remedy by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity) against a decision to initiate an inquiry, and that any complaint relating to the breadth of a production order could be dealt with before that tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 15th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has granted a privacy injunction (its first since 2011) to prevent the Sun on Sunday revealing details of a well-known entertainer’s extramarital threesome (PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 100).’
RPC Data and Privacy Law, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) has failed in its bid to overturn a landmark ruling in which it was ordered to pay approximately £1.2 million in damages for infringing the privacy of eight individuals through phone hacking.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024