Equity Breach of confidence. The claimant brought a claim for damages against the defendant Chief Constable of Essex Police arising from a press release by Essex Police. The Queens Bench Division held that the release of the information had not been reasonably necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case and the claimant was awarded damages, including 57,750 special damages for loss of earnings.
Solicitor Law Society. The Chancery Division held that the Law Society had the power to destroy old and redundant documents seized in connection with interventions in solicitors' practices, such power being justified as falling within the scope of para 16 of Pt II of to the Solicitors Act 1974.
Employment tribunal Striking out. The employee had previously settled a claim against the employer. She then brought proceedings alleging victimisation, which, she said, had occurred as a result of her having advanced the settled claim and subsequent claims. The claims all arose from the refusal by the employee's doctoral supervisor to provide her with a reference. The employment tribunal struck out claims three to five and the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal on those claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in upholding the employee's appeal in respect of claims three and four, held, inter alia, that the employer's case had to depend upon a consideration of the merits which was not justified in the present appeal. The appeal in respect of claim five was dismissed.
Police Powers. The present appeal concerned the question of the circumstances in which DNA profiles obtained by the police in the exercise of their criminal law enforcement functions could, without the consent of the data subject, be put to uses which were remote from the field of criminal law enforcement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, construed s 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985 as meaning that, if the police considered that it was necessary to retain DNA material obtained under Pt II of PACE for criminal law enforcement purposes, they could not use it for any other purpose.
Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal by the defendant investment banker against his conviction for money laundering in respect of funds obtained by a corrupt Nigerian politician. The court held, among other things, that the judge had not erred in his treatment of the defendant's previous acquittal.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of imprisonment of seven years for offences including money laundering. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had not been open to the appellant to argue that the forum bar in of the Extradition Act 2003 applied. Further, there had been no abuse of process nor, having rejected new evidence, disproportionate interference with his and his wife's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Data protection Processing of information. The claimant had put forward his own name twice unsuccessfully to the defendant House of Lords appointment commission. The claimant brought seeking disclosure of two unsolicited letters sent to the defendant under the . His claim was opposed by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that the information was exempted information and dismissed the claim.
Data protection Processing of information. The first defendant, Google, sought to strike out the claimant's proceedings, claiming damages and injunctive relief with respect to images and footage of private sexual activity, or judgment in its favour on the basis that the claimant had no prospect of success. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application held that the claimant's primary case on ss 10 and-or 13 and 14 of the was not such that it had no real prospect of success. On the contrary, it seemed to be a viable claim which raised questions of general public interest which ought to proceed to trial.
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the second indent of art 3(2) of Directive (EC) 95-46 (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) should be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people was stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitored a public space, did not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.
Costs Order for costs. Following a substantive hearing in which the claimant, although abandoning a large number of claims pre-trial, had been largely successful at trial, the court ordered that: (i) the claimant was to pay 80% of the defendant's costs on a standard basis up to and including a pre-trial review; (ii) the defendant was to pay 20% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis up to and including the pre-trial review; and (iii) the defendant was to pay 100% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis after the pre-trial review up to and including the trial.