Keynote speaker announced at the 11KBW Information law conference: Sir Michael Tugendhat

Posted on | by Claire Halas

We are delighted Sir Michael Tugendhat will be delivering the key note address on “Remedies and the Law of Privacy” at this year’s Information Law Conference. Sir Michael was the High Court’s senior media judge from October 2010 until his retirement in June 2014, presiding over a number of high-profile and important cases. Before his appointment to the bench he was a leading practitioner in defamation and media law, and he is the co-author of Tugendhat & Christie: The Law of Privacy and the Media (3rd ed., 2016, forthcoming).

For more details on the Information law conference click here.
EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT – 10% off if you book before 15th February 2016 on both half and full day places.

Employer was entitled to access employee’s private Yahoo! messages (and to sack him)

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

Employers very often wish to monitor how their employees are using work computing facilities during office hours. They may suspect wrongdoing, such as improper use of confidential client or business information, or accessing material which is prohibited by the employer’s policies. They may be concerned about employees using work facilities – and work time – for personal communications. Can the employer investigate by accessing the employee’s communications without their knowledge? Continue reading →

‘Plebgate’ and the protection of journalistic sources

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

It has been a mixed day for the media’s entanglements with the judiciary. Chris Knight posted earlier today about the unhappy outcome for Mirror Group Newspapers before the Court of Appeal in the Gulati privacy damages litigation arising from phone-hacking.

News Group Newspapers, however – together with Sun journalist claims Tom Newton Dunn, Anthony France and Craig Woodehouse – had a happier outcome in another case about telephone privacy, though this time with the media as victim rather than perpetrator of the interference.

Judgment IPT/14/176/H saw the claimants succeed in part in their claim against the Metropolitan Police in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’). Continue reading →

Fees in the GRC: Apocalyse Postponed

Posted on | by Christopher Knight

One of the more popular posts Panopticon has been responsible for was alerting people to an MoJ consultation proposal to introduce fees for all cases in the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. That includes appeals against DPA information, enforcement and monetary penalty notices, and appeals against Information Commissioner decision notices under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

A mass campaign was orchestrated by the Campaign for Freedom of Information which generated over 40,000 responses opposing fees for FOIA appeals. Continue reading →

Dransfield and the Supreme Court: Game Over

Posted on | by Christopher Knight

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

Phone Hacking and the Level of Damages

Posted on | by 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 →