Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant was found to be in breach of a previous injunction granted to the claimant prohibiting publication of certain videos by the defendant on his YouTube Channel. The Queen's Bench Division, accordingly found the defendant to be in contempt of Court.
Practice Service out of the jurisdiction. Even before considering the merits of the claimant's application for an interim injunction against Google in a right to be forgotten case, it was clear that it could not be granted because the claimant had not effected proper service on the right corporate entity at the right address and he had no permission to serve outside the jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division refused the injunction.
*Watson MP and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Open Rights Group and others intervening)
Data protection Data retention and investigatory powers. of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was inconsistent with EU law to the extent that, for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, it permitted access to retained data: (i) where the object pursued by that access was not restricted solely to fighting serious crime; or (ii) where access was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused other declarations sought by the claimants.
European Union Jurisdiction. of Council Regulation (EC) No 44-2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that the activities of publishing books, lecturing, operating websites, fundraising and being assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement did not entail the loss of a private Facebook account user's status as a 'consumer' within the meaning of that article. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings between the applicant (domiciled in Austria) and Facebook Ireland Ltd (which had its registered office in Ireland) in respect of certain private Facebook accounts.
Data protection Personal data. The claimants obtained a limited order, under of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, for reporting restrictions in their proceedings against Google concerning their right to be forgotten. The Queen's Bench Division, adjourned the application for a short period to enable notice to be given to the media and because the parties needed to give more thought to how the trial was to be conducted, what information was to be withheld from proceedings in open court and the appropriate terms of any s 11 order.
European Union Money laundering. A person whose commercial activity consisted in selling companies which it had formed itself, without any prior request on the part of its potential clients, for the purposes of sale to those clients, by means of a transfer of its shares in the capital of the company being sold, fell within the scope of art 2(1), point3(c) of on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, read in conjunction with art 3, point7(a) of that directive. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling concerning proceedings relating to compliance with the requirements set out in Czech national law transposing that directive.
European Union Data protection. Article2(a) of should be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the written answers submitted by a candidate at a professional examination and any comments made by an examiner with respect to those answers constituted personal data, within the meaning of that provision. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings between the applicant and the Data Protection Commissioner (Ireland) concerning the latter's refusal to give the applicant access to a corrected script of an examination at which he had been a candidate, on the ground that the information contained therein did not constitute personal data.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The first defendant was the beneficial owner of a property, despite a transfer of the legal title to the interested party in the proceedings. The Chancery Division held that there had been a presumption of a resulting trust where the transfer had been gratuitous and that that presumption had not been displaced on the facts. In those circumstances, and where the claimant National Crime Agency had obtained summary judgment against the first defendant concerning unpaid tax, an interim charging order was made final.
Practice Disclosure and inspection of documents. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application, under CPR 31.22(1)(b), to be released from the collateral use prohibition on documents disclosed in litigation concerning the beneficial ownership of a company. It held that there was reason to doubt that the motivation behind the application was that of the claimant seeking to exercise her rights under the and the court had not been persuaded that the necessary special and cogent reasons for such release in fact existed.
Vicarious liability Employer and employee. The employer, supermarket chain, Morrisons, was held to be vicariously liable for the criminal actions of a rogue employee in disclosing personal information of co-employees on the internet. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been sufficient connection between the position in which the rogue employee had been employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for Morrisons to be held liable under the principle of social justice. That conclusion would be the same irrespective of whether a breach of duty under the a misuse of private information, or a breach of the duty of confidence was concerned, for the essential actions constituting a legal wrong in each case had been the same.