R (on the application of W, X, Y, and Z) v Secretary of State for Health (British Medical Association intervening)
National Health Service Medical records. An application for judicial review of the lawfulness of the guidance to the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011, SI2011-1556, which permitted the transfer of patient data regarding non-United Kingdom resident patients to, ultimately, the Home Office for the purpose of consideration of immigration sanctions, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal. The information transferred was generally not private information vis-a-vis the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Office. The transfer was not ultra vires the NHS bodies and the Secretary of State and, finally, any interference with the claimants' rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was in accordance with the law.
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, on the proper construction of of Council Directive (EC) 95-46, , which found that the United States ensured an adequate level of data protection, was invalid.
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 4(1)(a) and 28(1), (3) and (6) of . The request had been made in proceedings between Weltimmo, a company which had its registered office in Slovakia, and the Hungarian data protection authority concerning a fine imposed by the latter for infringement of Hungarian Law CXII (on the right to self-determination as regards information and freedom of information), which had transposed into Hungarian law.
European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that , and of Directive (EC) 95-46 had to be interpreted as precluding national measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed a public administrative body of a member state to transfer personal data to another public administrative body and their subsequent processing, without the data subjects having been informed of that transfer or processing.
Freedom of information Exempt information. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) had, during the course of a raid, collected a list of names of journalists who had obtained information through an investigator. The respondent had sought disclosure of those names under a Freedom of Information request. The ICO refused the request, and that was upheld by the Information Commissioner. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) determined that some of the names should be disclosed. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) upheld the FTT's decision, as there had been no error of law in its decision that the information in issue was not 'sensitive personal data' within the meaning of the and that its disclosure was for a legitimate purpose, rather than an unwarranted intrusion into the journalists' privacy rights.
Privilege Legal professional privilege. The claimants applied for declarations that the first defendant law firm had failed to comply with their subject access requests and orders, under of the Data Protection Act 1998, requiring it to do so. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the legal professional privilege exclusion included documents in respect of which disclosure could be resisted in Bahamian proceedings and it had not been reasonable or proportionate for the first defendant to carry out the necessary search.
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.