Data Protection
18.05.22
Blacklisted: Removing a marker from a fraud database
Fraud databases effectively act as blacklists for financial institutions. An individual with a fraud marker against their name on a fraud database will normally only discover its existence after they have had to deal with the adverse effects that it can cause, such as being refused credit, or an abrupt (and often unexplained) closure of…
Read more27.04.22
Sex offender’s attempt to hold law firm to ransom over data breach backfires
In Chief Constable of Kent Police & Anor v Taylor [2022] EWHC 737 (QB), Mr Justice Saini considered a claim for breach of confidence, arising from the Defendant’s refusal to delete videos that a law firm that had accidentally disclosed to him and which contained sensitive information about a vulnerable minor. The videos were taken…
Read more26.04.22
Closed judgments and national security
In this blog we examine the decisions in The Queen on the application of Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2022] EWHC 770 QB and Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation [2022] EWHC 826 (QB), and the topic of closed judgments. Neither judgment fully explains the reasoning behind their…
Read more4.02.22
In defence of privacy and the judiciary: the fall-out from HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd
Brett Wilson LLP partner Iain Wilson tries to unpick some of the misreporting following the Court of Appeal’s decision in HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1810 Here we are again. The press doesn’t like us having private lives and the government doesn’t like judges making decisions it disagrees…
Read more10.01.22
Lexis Nexis Interview: Misuse of private information claims – where are we after Lloyd v Google?
Percy Preston of Brett Wilson LLP is interviewed about the future of misuse of private information claims after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 What are the key points the Supreme Court made in Lloyd v Google regarding misuse of private information claims? It is important to note that the…
Read more14.12.21
Press Release: Mensa pays Eugene Hopkinson libel damages
British Mensa Limited and its directors have agreed to pay defamation damages and costs to former director Eugene Hopkinson after publishing a series of statements that alleged he was responsible for a data leak and cyberattack and had deliberately attempted to harm Mensa and its membership. The settlement was announced at a hearing before Mr…
Read more22.11.21
Should litigants in person get less leeway in libel cases?
The question of how much leeway a litigant-in-person should get when it comes to compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) and court orders is a long-argued and fraught one. The concept of litigants-in-person being treated in the same way as those professionally represented has been eroded over time with concessions here and indulgences there….
Read more22.10.21
High Court throws out ‘trivial’ data leak claim
In Rolfe & Ors v Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP [2021] EWHC 2809 (QB) Master McCloud granted the Defendant’s application for summary judgment on the basis that there was no credible case that a data leak had caused distress or damage above a de minimis threshold. Facts The facts of the case are straightforward. The Defendant…
Read more21.10.21
Brett Wilson LLP and its lawyers recommended in Chambers and Partners 2022 directory
Brett Wilson LLP’s media and communications law and criminal defence departments have again been recommended by the prestigious Chambers and Partners directory. In the firm’s media and communications law department, partners Iain Wilson (noted for ‘having very good knowledge and understanding what a client wants), Max Campbell (‘outstanding knowledge, practical approach and amazing client service‘) and…
Read more19.10.21
Neighbour CCTV harassment and data protection claim succeeds
Introduction On 12 October 2021, Oxford County Court handed down judgment in Fairhurst v Woodard (Case No: G00MK161). A dispute between neighbours over the use of cameras for security purposes, the case gave rise to successful claims in harassment and data protection, and offers an important note of caution for those looking to install surveillance…
Read moreLegal Disclaimer
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.