Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Fearn and others (Appellants) v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery (Respondent) Case ID: 2020/0056 Case summary Issue The judge said “the only tenable justification” for publication would be to correct some inaccuracies about the letter contained in an article in People magazine that had featured an interview with friends of Meghan.
Privacy Shield for data struck down by court - BBC News EU-US Privacy Shield for data struck down by court - BBC News
The duchess sued Associated Newspapers in September 2019 over five articles in the MoS and Mail Online that were billed as a “world exclusive” featuring “Meghan’s shattering letter to her father”.The Court agreed that limb one was met on the facts. However, the Court found that Mr Peters did not have a reasonable expectation of protection from disclosure of this information within MSD and from MSD to the relevant Ministers and select staff. As the claimant could not prove that any of defendants had released information to the media. The appeal was dismissed. The case affirmed the removal of the requirement for there to be widespread disclosure and the potential for the removal of the requirement that disclosure be highly offensive. R (Open Rights Group and the 3 million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 800,
Meghan wins ruling in Mail on Sunday privacy fight - BBC News
The data protection class action against Google which found that they are permissible in the case of DPA breaches for the Safari Workaround. The case sets a precedent for representative opt-out style class actions for data protection breaches under UK law. An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. INFORRM had a case comment. Coverage from legal outlets was broad including Matrix Chambers, DLA Piper, Linklaters and Farrer & Co. In this case the Alberta Court of the Queen’s Bench awarded damages under new “public disclosure of private fact” tort. The case concerned the making public of images of the claimant engaging in sex acts with the defendant- these had been shared during a romantic relationship between 2005 to 2016 where the parties had two children together. The parties had a mutual understanding that the images would not be shared or published anywhere. However, the defendant then proceeded to share the images online, including those involving the sexual assault of the claimant. There were various appeals but in November of 2021 Google was ultimately successful with the Supreme Court ruling that the “lowest common denominator” approach was not appropriate and that neither damages for “loss of control” of data without any material damage or distress, nor “user damages” are available in claims under section 13 of the DPA 1998. As a result, Lloyd’s claim could not be served on Google (although they may still apply where claims rely upon the tort of misuse of private information). HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch) and [2021] EWCA Civ 1810.For an introduction to the data protection regimes under the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) or the Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018), see: Data protection toolkit and Practice Note: The Data Protection Act 2018. For an introduction to the data protection regime under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), see: Data protection regime—DPA 1998—overview [Archived]. News organisations should also apply caution where publishing information which has (a) been created in circumstances which may be argued to be private and (b) not previously entered the public domain.
privacy case at High Court Cliff Richard: Singer wins BBC privacy case at High Court
The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private. The articles interfered with that reasonable expectation.” However, Le Soir created a free, electronic, searchable version of its archives from 1989 onwards, including the article at issue. G relied on the fact that the article appeared in response to a search on his name on Le Soir’s internal search engine and on Google Search. He explained that its availability was damaging to his reputation, particularly in his work as a doctor. The newspaper refused the application by stated it had asked Google to delist/deindex the article. The Court found that, in providing the option, “Don’t save my Location History in my Google Account”, represented to some reasonable consumers that they could prevent their location data being saved on their Google Account. In actual fact, users need to change an additional setting, separate, to stop their location data being saved to their Google Account.In 2017, the Economist found that half of the world’s countries scored lower for democracy than the previous year, mainly because of the erosion of confidence in government and public institutions. In alignment with this, according to the Director Journal, in 2017, the 28th Governor General of Canada articulated the growing and “disturbing” global pattern of mistrust in institutions, finding for the first time in the same year that less than half of Canadians trust their government, business, media, non-governmental organizations, and their leaders. It is a welcome decision for those suspected of crimes who are subsequently not charged as they no longer have a reputational cloud hanging over their heads simply because of the investigation. If suspects are not charged then, in the majority of cases, no one will ever find out about the investigation.” A spokesperson for Associated Newspapers said: “We are very surprised by today’s summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial. We are carefully considering the judgment’s contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal.” The degree of that harm depends on the factual circumstances, but experience shows that it can be profound and irremediable.” Also expected to impact the allocation of claims involving “trivial” breaches of data protection legislation, as the court made clear that the High Court was not the appropriate forum for these (see also Warren v DSG Retail Ltd above).
Great Deal 
New Comment