Author: Anya Proops KC

CHARGING FOR PROPERTY SEARCH INFORMATION – IMPORTANT NEW TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

Anybody who has ever bought a property will know that property searches must be conducted as part of the process. Originally, it was the buyer who had to conducted the searches. However, following the introduction of the HIPs regime in 2007, it is now the seller’s responsibility. In tandem with the introduction of the HIPs regime, the Government introduced the Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008, which empower local authorities to charge for making property search information available to members of the public. However, importantly, those Regulations have to be applied in a way which does not, in effect, cut across the access regime afforded under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). This means that, in practice, it will often be the EIR which governs whether and to what extent local authorities can charge for making property search information available

In the recent case of East Riding of Yorkshire v IC & York Place, the Tribunal was called upon to determine the question of whether, on an application of the EIR, particular property search information should have been made available to a property search company free of charge. More particularly, the Tribunal had to determine whether the local authority: (a) was required to allow the company to inspect the information free of charge at the local authorities premises; or (b) was entitled to refuse inspection and make the information available by way of hard copy documents, for which a charge could be levied under r. 8 EIR. After having made a number of findings as to the weakness of certain aspects of the council’s evidence, the Tribunal went on to hold that the council ought in fact to have permitted the company to inspect the relevant records free of charge. This judgment is important both because of its careful examination of the principles relating to charging under the EIR and because of its implications for local authority charging regimes in respect of property search information. 11KBW’s Jane Oldham appeared on behalf of the council and Anya Proops appeared on behalf of the Information Commissioner. 

Protecting the Anonymity of Parties – EAT Supplements Its Own Rules of Procedure

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

On 5 March 2010, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (President Underhill presiding) gave a judgment on the question of whether it had powers to protect the anonymity of a party in a case involving allegations of sexual offences – A v B (UKEAT/0206/09/SM). The background to the judgment was that a claimant had been granted permanent anonymity by the Employment Tribunal under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 Sch.1 para.49. The anonymity order had been made in circumstances where the claimant, who was claiming unfair dismissal, had been dismissed in response to a disclosure by police that he had been involved in paedophile activity in Cambodia and was believed to represent a risk to children. The Claimant had in fact been acquitted in the Cambodian courts and there was no reason to believe he faced prosecution in the UK. On appeal against the tribunal’s judgment to the EAT, the question arose as to whether the EAT had power to maintain the anonymisation when dealing with the appeal. This was a difficult question to resolve because, on their face, the EAT Rules 1993 read together with the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 did not provide for such a power. In a judgment which reflects the overriding importance of human rights considerations, the EAT held that it did have such a power. In reaching this conclusion, the EAT took into account: (a) that the loss of the claimant’s anonymity would involve a serious breach of his convention rights, particularly the Article 8 right to privacy; (b) that, on the facts of the case, the need to protect the claimant’s privacy under Article 8 outweighed the imperative towards freedom of expression embodied in Article 10 of the Convention; and (c) that, in the circumstances, s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the EAT to interpret its powers so as to include a power to protect the claimant’s anonymity.

In the course of its judgment, the EAT considered the very recent judgment of the Supreme Court in HM Treasury v Ahmed [2010] UKSC 1; [2010] 2 WLR 325. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the old common law rule that a party forfeited his right to privacy if he chose to bring proceedings (subject to certain limited statutory exceptions) required modification in the light of the Convention. It concluded that, in a case where full publication of the proceedings would have an impact on the Article 8 rights of a party, the court will have to conduct a balancing exercise between that right and the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (see per Lord Roger, para. 43). This is precisely the balance which the EAT sought to strike in the Av B case.

Hearing Closed evidence in Civil Claims – Al Rawi in the Court of Appeal

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

Next week, the Court of Appeal will hear an appeal by Bisher Al Rawi and other former Guantanamo detainees against Silber J’s decision that the court does have the power, in the context of civil claims for damages, to hear evidence in the absence of the claimant and the public – see Al Rawi v Security Services & Ors and see also my earlier post on Silber J’s judgment. If the Court of Appeal upholds the decision, the High Court will determine at a future hearing whether to adopt a closed process in this case. Karen Steyn appears for the Respondents.

 

FSA’S POWERS TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS – NEW COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The Court of Appeal has today handed down an important decision on the nature and scope of the FSA’s powers to require production of documents under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), Financial Services Authority & Ors v Amro International & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 123. The case involved a request made to the FSA by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission had instituted proceedings in the United States alleging fraudulent and manipulative trading in the shares of a US company. Pursuant to a multilateral memorandum of understanding concerning the exchange of information (the Memorandum), the Commission sent to the FSA a letter requesting the FSA’s assistance in obtaining the production of documents from a London-based accounting firm (G) which acted for two companies implicated in the US litigation. In response to the request, the FSA appointed investigators under the FSMA and the investigators issued notices to G pursuant to s. 171 and/or s. 172 FSMA to produce the documents and information described in the Commission’s request. Overturning the judgment of the High Court, the Court of Appeal held that the FSA’s actions in appointing investigators and issuing the notices were lawful under the FSMA. In the course of its judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected arguments advanced by the respondents to the effect that: (a) the FSA had to verify the information provided by the Commission and the Commission’s need for documents prior to taking action under the FSMA; (b) the FSA’s actions were at odds with the terms of the Memorandum and (c) it had to be established that production of the documents was ‘necessary or expedient’ in all the circumstances. It held that: there was nothing in the statute which required the FSA to second-guess a foreign regulator as to its own laws and procedures or as to the genuineness or validity of its request for assistance; the question of whether to provide the requested assistance was to be determined under the FSMA and not the Memorandum; and the test to be applied in respect of the production of documents was that contained in s. 171(2), namely whether the investigator reasonably considered production to be relevant to the purposes of the investigation; the test contained in s. 171(2) was a relatively low hurdle which had been cleared on the facts of the case. The Court of Appeal recognized that the FSA’s actions might engage the Article 8 right to privacy and, hence, considerations of proportionality came into play. However, it concluded that the actions taken by the FSA were proportionate in all the circumstances.

LABOUR PARTY IN THE DOG-HOUSE OVER AUTOMATED CALLS

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The Commissioner has this week issued an enforcement notice to the Labour Party in response to its act of making unsolicited automated marketing calls without consent to almost half a million people. The calls were made in June 2009 and were designed to encourage people to vote in the European elections. The ICO held that, notwithstanding their inherently political nature, the actions taken by the Labour Party amounted to unlawful ‘direct marketing’ for the purposes of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. The enforcement notice requires the Labour Party to desist from making further automated calls without the recipients’ consent. Breach of the notice will amount to a criminal offence and could lead to prosecution. This is not the first time that a political party has received an enforcement notice in response to making automated calls. Similar notices have previously been served on the Conservatives, the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats. See further the Commissioner’s press release on this issue.