Posts

Showing posts with the label Data Protection

The Form of the Carve Out and Publication Order: Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers

Image
By Seauton , 24 February 2019 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Lord Justice Warby) HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 669 (Ch) (22 March 2021) Following the largely successful summary judgment application by Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline in HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd . [2021] WLR(D) 100, [2021] 4 WLR 35, [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch) which I discussed in Summary Judgment - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers on 12 Feb 2021, Lord Justice Warby granted a declaration, injunction and publication order to the duchess and gave directions for the conduct of the remaining proceedings in HHR The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 510 (Ch) (5 March 2021). I discussed those proceedings in Judgment and Order: Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd on 9 March 2021, There remained issues over the wordin...

Data Protection: The "Right to be Forgotten" Updated

Image
Jane Lambert The phrase, "the right to be forgotten", was coined by the Audiencia Nacional  (the Spanish high court) in its questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") pursuant to art 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in Case C‑131/12 Mario Costeja Gonzalez v Google Spain SL and another   [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 301, [2014] All ER (EC) 717, [2014] 1 QB 1022, [2014] 3 CMLR 50, [2014] ECDR 16, 36 BHRC 589, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, [2014] EMLR 27, EU:C:2014:317, [2014] 3 WLR 659, [2014] EUECJ C-131/12, [2014] QB 1022. In that case the Audiencia Nacional asked the CJEU "whether Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46 i s to be interpreted as meaning that the activity of a search engine as a provider of content which consists in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a p...

Wilmslow versus the Bahamas: Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing and Others

Image
Bahamas Source Wikipedia Reproduced under a Creative Commons Licence Probably because it implements an EU directive and costs small business owners money to support a bureaucracy in Wilmslow and is cited by petty officials as an excuse for all sorts of irritations the Data Protection Act 1998  is one of the least understood and most maligned and least appreciated Acts of Parliament on the statute book. It does have its used of course and I for one would keep but I suspect that I am in a minority. If Parliament were ever to repeal this legislation the population would breath a mighty and very audible sigh of relief. In  Dawson-Damer and Others v Taylor Wessing LLP and Others [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch) (6 Aug 2015) the claimants in an action in the Bahamas over the administration of a trust sued solicitors who had advised the trustees of that trust in England for an order under s.7 (9) of the Data Protection Act 1998. The order that they sought would have...

Right to be forgotten: a Transatlantic Dialogue

Image
Jane Lambert On 12 June 2014  La Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) . the French data protection authority, issued a notice requiring Google to apply de-listing from all platforms of its search engine such as Google Sierra Leone and Google Mongolia  and not just those like Google UK , Google  France and Google Deutschland that are marketed to residents of EU member states. In his post  Implementing a European, not global, right to be forgotten  30 July 2915 Google's privacy counsel Peter Flecischer stated that Google had refused to implement that notice and had asked the CNIL to withdraw it. It is possible that the CNIL will change its mind and do so but it is more likely that it won't.  In that case the President of the Commission could nominate a Rapporteur and ask him or her to draft a report recommending sanctions to be imposed on Google for such non-compliance. Google could of course...

Norwich Pharmacal Orders: Golden Eye and Others v O2

We have all given a warm welcome to the small intellectual property claims track but, as I warned in "The New Small IP Claims Jurisdiction" on 5 March 2012, there are likely to be a lot of claims against little people in the new tribunal.  I mentioned claims by photo libraries in my article but there may well be a torrent  (apologies for the pun) of claims against file sharers too. An indication that could happen is  Golden Eye (International) Ltd and Others v Telefonica UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch) (26 March 2012). Importance of the Case This was a claim by Golden Eye (International) Ltd. and 13 other claimants against O2   (the trading name of Telefonica UK Ltd) for Norwich Pharmacal orders. These are orders requiring a person who is not himself a wrongdoer but who has documents or information identifying wrongdoers to make that information available to an injured party.   The jurisdiction takes its name from the appeal in  Norwich Pharmacal...