Police Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal against the dismissal of their claims for damages resulting from the disclosure of their address to the accused in criminal proceedings in which they were to be called as witnesses. It held, among other things, that the actions of the police in serving a witness summons, making a statement with a view to giving evidence of that fact and producing that statement to the prosecuting authority for the purposes of making an application for a warrant of arrest all formed part of their core function of obtaining and preserving evidence, in the discharge of which they did not owe a duty of care to the public at large.
*R (on the application of Davis MP and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Open Rights Group and others intervening)
Data protection Processing of information. The Divisional Court, in allowing the claimants' application for judicial review, declared that of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was incompatible with the requirements of European Union law insofar as it: (i) did not lay down clear and precise rules on access to, and use of, retained communications data to be strictly restricted to the purpose of preventing and detecting precisely defined serious offences or of conducting criminal prosecutions; and (ii) access to the data was not made dependent on a prior review by a court or an independent administrative body.
Libel and slander Pleading. The claimant, Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdullah Al Alaoui of Morocco, sought permission to amend his libel claim to plead a new meaning and to add a claim under the . The Queen's Bench Division refused permission as to the meaning, as it appeared fashioned so that an action in defamation could be pursued. However, permission as to the claim under the Act would be granted, as such a claim was arguable.
European Union Community institutions. The Court of Justice of the European Union set aside a judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as the General Court had thereby dismissed the action brought by ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) for: (i) annulment of initially, a decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), refusing an application for access to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market; and subsequently (ii) for annulment of EFSA's decision, withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, save for the names of certain external experts.
European Union Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that of Directive (EC) 2004-48 had to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to art 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder.
European Union European institutions. The General Court of the European Union ruled on the application by Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament refusing to grant him access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme. The General Court decided that the contested decision would be annulled in so far as the European Parliament had refused to grant access to the names of the MEPs who had been members of the scheme. However, the action would be dismissed as to the remainder.
Human Rights Right to respect for private and family life. The present judicial review proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the disclosure, by the police to a local authority designated officer, of non-conviction material relating to alleged sexual misconduct by the claimant teacher and the subsequent dismissal of his complaint concerning the disclosure. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision to disclose had been unlawful, as it had failed to have sufficient regard to the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the failure to conduct an appropriate and sufficient investigation was so procedurally unfair as to render the resulting decision unlawful.
Confidential information Interlocutory injunction. The claimant company, Allfiled, brought proceedings alleging that the defendants, three of whom were former directors of Allfiled, had conspired to set up their own business and had caused employees to leave Allfiled. It sought interlocutory injunctive relief against the defendants pending trial or further order, to prevent them from using, disclosing or disseminating Allfiled's confidential information and intellectual property. The Chancery Division made an order accordingly.
Freedom of information Request. Two appeals were heard together as they concerned common issues regarding s14 of the . In the second appeal, issues arose regarding requests for information made under reg12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI2004-331. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the meaning of 'vexatious' and 'manifestly unreasonable' and whether past requests could be taken into account in considering whether a fresh request was vexatious.
Proceeds of crime Unlawful conduct. The second defendant objected to the inclusion of the matrimonial home in the claimant National Crime Agency's application for a civil recovery order (CRO) in respect of seven properties, four bank accounts and a Rolex watch. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was an overwhelming case against the first defendant for misconduct consisting of drug-dealing, money laundering and mortgage fraud, such that all the property was recoverable. With respect to the matrimonial home, the statutory exception to its inclusion in the CRO in s266 of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 had not been made out.