AB v Ministry of Justice

Data protection Processing of information. The claimant issued proceedings seeking relief, including damages, for the defendant Ministry of Justice's breach of its duty under of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had contravened the provisions of the Act in relation to some material by a delay in its provision to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to 1 for the delay and 2,250 for the distress he had suffered as a result of the delay.

Google Spain SL and another company v Agencia Espanola de proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and another

European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 2(b) and (d), art 4(1)(a) and (c), art 12(b) and sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of art 14 of Directive (EC) 95-46 of the European Parliament and of the and of art 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. and the Spanish Data Protection Agency (the AEPD); and Mr Costeja Gonzlez concerning a decision by the AEPD upholding the complaint lodged by Mr Costeja Gonzlez against those two companies and ordering Google Inc. to adopt the measures necessary to withdraw personal data relating to Mr Costeja Gonzlez from its index and to prevent access to the data in the future.

Weller and others v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Tort Cause of action. The defendant newspaper published photographs of the children of well-known musician, Paul Weller, taken in California. The children sought damages and an injunction for misuse of private information and breach of the . The Queen's Bench Division held that it could assess what the defendant had known and what it ought to have known in determining the children's reasonable expectation of privacy. Further, the lawfulness of taking and publishing the photographs in California would be taken into account when assessing the legal tests, but was not determinative. Having found the claims established, it awarded the children damages totalling 10,000.

Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling in two actions, Cases and concerning the validity of Directive (EC) 2006-24, and ruled that it was invalid. In , the request had concerned the legality of Irish national legislative and administrative measures concerning the retention of data relating to electronic communications. In , the request had concerned constitutional actions regarding the compatibility with the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law of the law transposing Directive 2006-24 into Austrian national law.

European Commission v Hungary

European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the request by the European Commission for a declaration that by prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the data protection supervisor for the protection of personal data, a role created by 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) (the Directive), Hungary had failed to fulfill its obligations under that directive.

*Kennedy v Charity Commission

Freedom of information Exempt information. The claimant journalist had sought disclosure under the from the Charity Commission of documents relating to inquiries that it had conducted. Disclosure had been refused on the ground that it was information covered by an absolute exemption from disclosure pursuant to s32(2) of that Act. That decision was affirmed by the courts, which also found that s32(2) was not to be read down to comply with art10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so the exemption had not ceased when the inquiry had ended. The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant's appeal on the same grounds, and also considered alternative remedies that had been available to the claimant outside the Act.

*R (on the applications of Golfrate Property Management Limited and another) v Crown Court at Southwark

Warrant Search warrant. The claimants sought by way of judicial review to set aside search and seizure warrants in relation to properties owned or occupied by them. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that the information prepared by the Metropolitan Police Service had contained material non-disclosures and misrepresentations. On the basis of what had been set out in the information with the misrepresentations corrected and with the disclosure which should have been made, there had not been reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimants had been engaged in money laundering. There had been nothing in the further evidence that had assisted and therefore the warrants would be set aside.

*Gohil v Gohil

Divorce Financial provision. A High Court judge had set aside a consent order in financial relief proceedings, after the divorce had been final for some years, where the consent order had been made in the High Court. He did so on the basis that there had been material non-disclosure on the part of the husband, and took into account subsequent material used in criminal proceedings against the husband. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, later ruled that that criminal material ought not to have been disclosed for use by the wife. On the husband's appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the judge had not had jurisdiction to set aside an order made by an equivalent judge at first instance. Further, he had erred in having set aside the order on the basis of the fresh evidence.

*R (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General

Freedom of information Exempt information. The claimant journalist sought the disclosure of communications passing between the Prince of Wales and various government departments. Following an order for partial disclosure by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), the defendant Attorney General issued a certificate under of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to the effect that the departments were not obliged to disclose the correspondence. The journalist's application for judicial review was dismissed and he appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the certificate had to be quashed, as the Attorney General had not had reasonable grounds for forming the opinion on which it had been based and it was unlawful because it was incompatible with European Union law.

*Evans and another v Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and others

Freedom of information Exempt information. The claimant journalist sought the disclosure of communications passing between the Prince of Wales and various government departments. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) ordered the partial disclosure of the communications (the 2012 decision) and subsequently granted the journalist's requests for lists and schedules (the 2013 decision). The government departments appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the 2012 decision had disposed of the claimant's claims in respect of lists and schedules, and the UT had been wrong in law to hold that it had had power to deal with that issue in the 2013 decision.