Google has withdrawn its appeal to the Supreme Court in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc  EWCA Civ 311.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.
In the long-running saga of PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd  UKSC 26 the Supreme Court has ruled by 4-1 in favour of maintaining a privacy injunction through until trial. The injunction was originally granted by the Court of Appeal on 22 January 2016. It prevents the publication of a story concerning an anonymous celebrity said to have engaged in an extra-marital ‘threesome’. Following the identification of the Claimant and their spouse in other jurisdictions and on social media, the Defendant New Group Newspapers Ltd (the publishers of The Sun) applied to have the injunction discharged. On 18 April 2016 the Court of Appeal agreed, but stayed execution of the order pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
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.
The country’s highest court has refused MGN Limited permission to appeal the decision in Representative Claimants -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 1291 – the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the appropriate level of damages in eight phone-hacking ‘test cases’. This decision itself was an unsuccessful appeal by MGN against the High Court decision in Gulatti & Ors v MGN Limited  EWHC 1482
The supreme Court in Hayes v Willoughby, have considered the scope of the defence under s.1(3)(a) of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997. Under that provision, a person cannot be found liable for a course of conduct that amounts to harassment if their conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.
In Fairclough Homes Ltd v summers  UKsC 26 The supreme Court overturned a line of authorities and held that a claim could be struck out after trial or even after an assessment of damages if it subsequently transpired that it was dishonest.
In Flood “v- Times News Limited  UKsC 11 the supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Defendant publisher, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal and restoring the 2009 decision of Mr Justice Tugendhat. Tugendhat Js original decision in the High Court was of particular significance as it was the first time a national newspaper had successfully established the Reynolds defence of journalistic qualified privilege.