A huge thank you to everyone who attended our sell out Information Law Conference today. It was great to see so many people. A big thank you to Sir Patrick Elias who did a fabulous job chairing the event and our brilliant speakers. Looking forward to next year’s conference already!

We all love nuggets, be they of gold or chicken. A couple of short recent Upper Tribunal judgments reached under FOIA may not be finger-lickin’ good, but are nonetheless worthy noting as a tasty morsel or two. Continue reading →

Information notices have so rarely surfaced in information rights litigation that I can almost hear a number of Panopticon readers saying ‘what is an information notice again?’. Fair question. Continue reading →

To what extent is an individual potentially on the hook, in terms of data protection liabilities, for material they post on their personal social media accounts, such as video clips on YouTube? The CJEU’s ruling in Sergejs Buivids (Case C–345/17) is the most recent addition to the line of authorities about the intersection between personal use of online networks, potential journalistic purposes and data protection duties. Continue reading →

If you think you understand how the DPA 2018 has implemented EU law in the shape of the GDPR (Part 1) and the Law Enforcement Directive (“LED”) (Part 3), and that is that, you may want to think again. What the DPA does not just depend on the language and the Part, but may also require consideration of the scope of EU law. R (El Gizouli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin) is such a case. Indeed, it is the first decided case of significance to consider the DPA 2018 at all. Continue reading →

Sometimes a case comes along which, whether through range of issues or over-enthusiastic pleading, seems to touch on more or less every data protection provision going. To this end, at least for the DPA 1998, we give you the lengthy treatise of Sales LJ that is: Cooper v National Crime Agency [2019] EWCA Civ 16. Continue reading →