In the case of XKF v BBC  EWHC 1560 (QB), Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing granted a privacy injunction to a former police officer, anonymised in these proceedings as XKF, to prevent the BBC from broadcasting film footage of him recorded at or near his home on 13 March 2018.
In The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor v TLU & Anor  EWCA Civ 2217 the Court of Appeal, was asked to review one aspect of Mr Justice Mitting’s decision in TLT & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor  EWHC 2217 (QB). The first instance decision (discussed at our blog here) considered a number of important issues relating largely to the assessment of quantum in “data leak” cases, including whether damages for accidental leaks should be assessed in the same way as deliberate privacy breaches (no), whether there was a de minimis principle in such cases (yes) and whether regard had to paid to the objective “rationality” of the level of distress pleaded (yes). However, the appeal (brought by the Defendant Home Office) was restricted to the issue of any liability owed to individuals affected by a data leak, but not specifically named in a leaked electronic document.
The long-awaited decision in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd  EWCA Civ 1334 has brought some badly-needed clarity and certainty to the law of libel, and it seems fair to say that reports of the death of the libel writ have been greatly exaggerated. The decision interprets both the meaning of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 – “the serious harm” test – and determines the point at which a claim for libel crystallises.
Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah Al Alouai of Morocco (‘the Prince’) has won an appeal against Elaph Publishing Limited (‘Elaph’) that now allows him to advance a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) and also overturned a previous ruling that the words published were not capable of being defamatory.
Google has withdrawn its appeal to the Supreme Court in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc  EWCA Civ 311. Therefore the landmark Court of Appeal decision, discussed here on this blog, that damages can be awarded under the Data Protection Act 1998 for distress and anxiety, even if no financial loss suffered, will stand as good law.
The Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal to discharge a non-disclosure injunction it granted itself earlier this year. Until the Supreme Court has reached its decision the injunction in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd – the “celebrity threesome gagging order” – will remain in force.