WordPress + Bootstrap

By way of brief update, Panopticon has learned that the Supreme Court has refused Mr Dransfield permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning vexatious requests under section 14(1) FOIA. This represents the end of that important piece of litigation. The Supreme Court also ruled that the issue of European law raised in the application for permission was “irrelevant”. It is unclear from the refusal of permission what that issue was, or what it could have been in the circumstances.

Christopher Knight

It is panto season, and everyone loves a good villain. This Christmas’ Wicked Stepmother is the Mirror Group who, when asking ‘Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the most liable of them all?’ has received the answer from the Court of Appeal that they are and must pay the consequences.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mirror Group Newspapers v Gulati & others [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 is a ringing endorsement of the lengthy (over 700 paragraphs) and detailed approach of Mann J at first instance, which Robin Hopkins has previously discussed (here). Given that endorsement, the judgment of Arden LJ can perhaps be taken more quickly than might otherwise be the case. Continue reading →

As has been foretold (see for example this prophecy from Christopher Knight), there is soon to be a new birth of exceeding great import, ushering in a new world order.

And lo: the General Data Protection Regulation is approaching the end of its long incubation. The text appears to have been agreed in the last few hours: see this press release from the European Commission. It will go to a committee vote on Thursday of this week and will then be put before the European Parliament. Happy Christmas everyone!

2016 will be a momentous one in data protection ones. Panopticon will try to round up some wise women or men to dissect the new GDPR for readers in due course.

Robin Hopkins @hopkinsrobin

Back in July of this year, Anya blogged on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in   Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy And Satamedia Oy v Finland (App. No. 931/13), which concerned a balancing of Article 8 and 10 rights. The Article 8 rights involved data privacy and the Article 10 rights involved those of a media organisation publishing journalism. The balancing exercise gave rise to a number of interesting points, as Anya discussed (here), many of which will only increase in importance under the new Data Protection Regulation.

Those points are now all back up for grabs, as the case has been referred to the Grand Chamber. Panopticon will, of course, keep an eye out for the judgment in the case as and when it appears.

Christopher Knight

Those of you hoping that this post will announce the conclusion of the General Data Protection Regulation will be disappointed. That stocking remains to be filled. There are, however, various other relevant legislative updates from Brussels worth pointing readers in the direction of. Continue reading →

Although most readers of this blog will be familiar, to some extent, with the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“PECR”), they are a rarely sighted beast in the reported jurisprudence. Panopticon is aware of individual damages claims brought in the County Courts for small sums, but even they are few and far between.

The recent judgment of Nicholas Lavender QC, sitting as Deputy, in Lebara Mobile Ltd & others v Lycamobile UK Ltd & others [2015] EWHC 3318 (Ch) is accordingly worth a read for a glimpse into how PECR may have a part to play in major commercial disputes. Continue reading →