The High Court has made an order in the anonymised case of NPV v QEL & ZED  EWHC 703 (QB) allowing for service of an injunction by text message. The case involves claims for misuse of private information and harassment in respect of an alleged blackmail attempt.
It was reported last month in various newspapers that Max Mosley, the Former Formula One boss, has threatened to issue legal proceedings against The Daily Mail, The Times, The Sun and The Daily Mirror in respect of articles that he claims breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”). He also apparently seeks the destruction of specified personal data retained by the papers.
With a number of high-profile claims against Google in the offing, practitioners and individuals alike are hopeful for guidance on the interplay between the application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ principle and the forthcoming introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Iain Wilson, managing partner of Brett Wilson LLP, considers the issues at hand.
According to official statistics published by the Ministry of Justice, there were, between July and December 2017, eight new applications for interim privacy injunctions, all of which were granted (available here). This was the highest number of successful new applications in a six-month period since 2012. Is the privacy injunction making a return?
Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry (colloquially referred to as ‘Leveson 2’) which had been intended to address ‘the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International and other media organisations’ has been formally canned by the Government. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which, had it ever come into force, would have made news publishers who were not subject to a Government-approved regulator, liable for the costs of defamation, privacy, and harassment claims, regardless of whether they won or lost, will now be repealed at the earliest opportunity.