||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 37 (Apr)
|| EWHC 695 (QB)
||Queen's Bench Division
||Philip Coppel QC and David Sherborne (instructed by Lee & Thompson LLP) for the claimant.
||Antony White QC and Ben Silverstone (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the defendant.
||6 April 2017
Practice - Interlocutory proceedings - Stay of proceedings - Claimant issuing proceedings against defendant publisher in respect of number of articles published - Claimant seeking damages and/or injunction for misuse of private information, harassment, and breaches of data protection legislation - Defendant applying for stay of proceedings - Claimant resisting application for stay on grounds incompatible with European Union law - Whether domestic law being inconsistent or incompatible with EU law - Data Protection Act, s 32(1), (4) - of European Parliament and Council, art 9 - European Convention on Human Rights, art 10.
Practice Interlocutory proceedings. The Queen's Bench Division held that the provisions of s32(4) of the Data Protection Act 1988, which provided in certain circumstances for an automatic stay of proceedings in respect of journalistic materials, was neither inconsistent or incompatible with art9 of Directive (EC)95-46 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The parliamentary purpose was reflected in the wording of s32(4) of the Act, which provided for a pro tanto stay.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases