With apologies for the delay, Panopticon now brings you highlights from a CJEU judgment from August 2022, that contributes to case law – albeit of a post-Brexit variety – on two GDPR issues. These are (i) the necessity and proportionality of the legislative basis for relying on Article 6(1)(e), and (ii) whether data can be ‘special category data’ by reason of an inference. Here are some key points from the Grand Chamber’s judgment in OT v Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija (Case C‑184/20). Continue reading →

Prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50, numerous representative claims – akin to opt-in class actions – were afoot in the data protection arena. Most seem, understandably, to have fizzled out following Lloyd. But not all. Following this week’s judgment in SMO v TikTok Inc. and Others [2022] EWHC 489 (QB), the claim against TikTok has more or less scraped through its first procedural hurdle, and now is now gearing up for a summary judgment hearing in the months ahead. Continue reading →

Some knotty FOIA debates end up generating confusing and apparently contradictory case law; some others get resolved by an authoritative three-person Upper Tribunal. The recent judgment of the UT (Mrs Justice Farbey and UT Judges Mullan and Wikeley) in FCDO v IC, Williams and Others [2021] UKUT 248 (AAC) is a neat example of the latter. It deals with the interplay between sections 23 and 24 of FOIA. Continue reading →

The High Court (Saini J) has today handed down judgment in Warren v DSG Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 2168 (QB) (available here: Warren v DSG judgment). It is pithy and important stuff for data protection litigation, especially as regards accidental data breaches and the recoverability of ATE premiums. Continue reading →

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (Open Rights Group and the3million) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 800, handed down this morning, concludes that the ‘immigration exemption’ in Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018 is not compliant with the GDPR. That is a very significant conclusion in its own right, from the perspectives of both immigration and data protection law. But the Court’s analysis also applies to a more general question: what does a valid (i.e. GDPR-compliant) exemption from data protection rights and duties look like? Continue reading →

My colleague Christopher Knight is a man of principle. In particular, he articulated the “Goldsmith Principles”, a kind of roadmap for dealing with the legitimate interests processing condition under DP law – see the Goldsmith judgment, and the approval of the Goldsmith Principles in Cooper. In a recent judgment from the Upper Tribunal, he has done the same for the security bodies exemption under section 23 of FOIA. Continue reading →