Vicarious liability for rogue employee’s data leak

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Suppose confidential, private and sensitive information is sold, leaked or otherwise wrongly disclosed by a rogue employee: is the employer vicariously liable? This question is a troubling one for many an employer and data controller. A new judgment on a claim for misuse of private information sheds some light on this question – and will not be comforting for employers and data controllers. The case is Axon v Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 787 (QB).

The Claimant was the commanding officer of a Royal Navy frigate when, in December 2004, he was summoned to London and relieved of his command following an investigation into his alleged bullying of officers on his ship. In that same month, the Sun published articles about the incident (‘Mutiny Skipper Sacked’ and so on). Continue reading →

Subject access request as precursor to litigation? No problem

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 643 (QB), a judgment of Warby J of 6 April 2016, is the High Court’s latest word on subject access requests. It illustrates some of the emerging trends in subject access litigation. It is also a salutary reminder to ensure that, for subject access request cases as for any other, adequate evidence is presented. Continue reading →

Information requests, purdah and the pre-election period

Posted on | by Jonathan Auburn

With a variety of local and regional elections coming up in May, and the EU referendum in June, purdah and the sensitivity of the pre-election period is at the forefront of many people’s minds. So how does this work with the handling of FoI requests by public authorities and national Commissioners? The issue hit the headlines Continue reading →

Information rights judgment reveals Charles’ views on the Queen

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

The Royal Family has been the subject of a good deal of information rights litigation. The most famous is of course the Evans saga, about the ‘advocacy correspondence’ of Prince Charles. There have also been cases about (to name just a few subjects) the cost of police protection for the Royal Family, whether or not the Duchy of Lancaster is a public authority, royal wills and alleged heirs to the throne, as well as – most recently – whether the Duke or Duchy of Cornwall is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). The most recent judgment focuses on Her Majesty the Queen herself, and reveals the views of Charles (J). Continue reading →

New Information Commissioner announced

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

So here’s the news you’ve all been waiting for: Elizabeth Denham, former Information and Privacy Commissioner, British Columbia, Canada is to be appointed as the new Information Commissioner, following the conclusion of Christopher Graham’s tenure this summer – see further the ICO announcement here. Ms Denham will be faced with some very substantial challenges in her new role, including dealing with the transition to the brave new world engendered by the General Data Protection Regulation. Panopticon wishes Ms Denham very well in her new post. It also wishes to thank Christopher Graham both for his invaluable contribution both to the development of the law relating to information rights and to the operational efficiency of the ICO. We wish him very well for the future.

Anya Proops QC