Data protection Processing of information. Google had sought, to set aside the permission that had been granted to the claimants to serve their claim form out of the jurisdiction in their action which alleged misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of the (the DPA). The action for breach of confidence was set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Google's appeal as the pleaded actions were clearly arguable and not pointless. The court held that misuse of private information should be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out of the jurisdiction and that, in order to make s13(2) of the DPA compatible with EU law, that section had to be disapplied, with the consequence that compensation would be recoverable under s13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of the requirements of the DPA.
*R (on the application of Evans) and another v Attorney General (Campaign for Freedom of Information Intervening)
Freedom of information Exempt information. The Attorney General appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, quashing a certificate issued pursuant to s53(2) of the and reg18(6) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI2004-3391, in respect of the disclosure of communications passing between The Prince of Wales and ministers in various government departments. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the communications requested were not excepted from any duty of disclosure to the claimant under s53 of the Act. Further, the effect of Directive (EC) 2003-4 (on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90-313-EEC) was to invalidate the certificate in relation to the environmental information, but not in relation to the non-environmental information in the advocacy correspondence.
Contract Illegality. The claimant carried on business as business transfer agents. It was common ground that the activities of the claimant fell within the definition of the expression 'estate agency work' in of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The relevance of that was the reference to 'estate agents' in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, . The parties entered into an agreement and a dispute arose. The claimant brought a claim based on the agreement. The defendant contended that the agreement was not enforcible for illegality. Applying established law, the Queen's Bench Division held that the agreement was illegal and was consequently unenforceable.
*R (on the application of Catt) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; R (on the application of T) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The present appeals concerned the systematic collection and retention by police authorities of electronic data about individuals. The Supreme Court, in allowing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeals, held that there had been no disproportionate interference with the respondents' rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Retention of material concerning the first respondent was justified by the legitimate requirements of police intelligence gathering and, as to the second respondent, the retention policy had been flexible enough to allow for information to be deleted when retaining it would no longer serve any useful policing purpose.
Equity Breach of confidence. The claimant brought a claim for damages against the defendant Chief Constable of Essex Police arising from a press release by Essex Police. The Queens Bench Division held that the release of the information had not been reasonably necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case and the claimant was awarded damages, including 57,750 special damages for loss of earnings.
Solicitor Law Society. The Chancery Division held that the Law Society had the power to destroy old and redundant documents seized in connection with interventions in solicitors' practices, such power being justified as falling within the scope of para 16 of Pt II of to the Solicitors Act 1974.
Employment tribunal Striking out. The employee had previously settled a claim against the employer. She then brought proceedings alleging victimisation, which, she said, had occurred as a result of her having advanced the settled claim and subsequent claims. The claims all arose from the refusal by the employee's doctoral supervisor to provide her with a reference. The employment tribunal struck out claims three to five and the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal on those claims. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in upholding the employee's appeal in respect of claims three and four, held, inter alia, that the employer's case had to depend upon a consideration of the merits which was not justified in the present appeal. The appeal in respect of claim five was dismissed.
Police Powers. The present appeal concerned the question of the circumstances in which DNA profiles obtained by the police in the exercise of their criminal law enforcement functions could, without the consent of the data subject, be put to uses which were remote from the field of criminal law enforcement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, construed s 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985 as meaning that, if the police considered that it was necessary to retain DNA material obtained under Pt II of PACE for criminal law enforcement purposes, they could not use it for any other purpose.
Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal by the defendant investment banker against his conviction for money laundering in respect of funds obtained by a corrupt Nigerian politician. The court held, among other things, that the judge had not erred in his treatment of the defendant's previous acquittal.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of imprisonment of seven years for offences including money laundering. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that it had not been open to the appellant to argue that the forum bar in of the Extradition Act 2003 applied. Further, there had been no abuse of process nor, having rejected new evidence, disproportionate interference with his and his wife's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.