Data protection Processing of information. The claimant had put forward his own name twice unsuccessfully to the defendant House of Lords appointment commission. The claimant brought seeking disclosure of two unsolicited letters sent to the defendant under the . His claim was opposed by the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that the information was exempted information and dismissed the claim.
Data protection Processing of information. The first defendant, Google, sought to strike out the claimant's proceedings, claiming damages and injunctive relief with respect to images and footage of private sexual activity, or judgment in its favour on the basis that the claimant had no prospect of success. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application held that the claimant's primary case on ss 10 and-or 13 and 14 of the was not such that it had no real prospect of success. On the contrary, it seemed to be a viable claim which raised questions of general public interest which ought to proceed to trial.
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that the second indent of art 3(2) of 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) should be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people was stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitored a public space, did not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.
Costs Order for costs. Following a substantive hearing in which the claimant, although abandoning a large number of claims pre-trial, had been largely successful at trial, the court ordered that: (i) the claimant was to pay 80% of the defendant's costs on a standard basis up to and including a pre-trial review; (ii) the defendant was to pay 20% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis up to and including the pre-trial review; and (iii) the defendant was to pay 100% of the claimant's costs on a standard basis after the pre-trial review up to and including the trial.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division entered summary judgment for the defendant hospital in respect of data protection brought by the claimant. It also struck out a defamation claim and gave the defendant its costs in relation to certain abandoned claims of the claimant.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Bulgaria to serve a sentence of five years' imprisonment for an offence akin to obtaining money by deception and money laundering against two victims on the ground of double jeopardy, given his conviction in Germany for fraud against one victim. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would offend against the rule of double jeopardy in respect of the common victim. In the circumstances, the potential jeopardy would arise whether or not the appellant sought to exercise his right to re-trial.
European Union Access to information. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the applicant Mr Ionnis Ntouvas for annulment of the decision of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) refusing the applicant access to the final audit reports carried out on the ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission.
Consumer credit Agreement. The proceedings raised a question as to the legitimacy of registration as a default with credit reference agencies of a non-payment by a debtor (or hirer) of money contracted to be paid under a regulated, but irremediably unenforceable, credit agreement. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the claimants' appeal against the judge's finding that they had not established causation, held, inter alia, that it had not been accurate to describe the first claimant as a defaulter under his hire purchase agreement once a competent court had decided that it had been irremediably unenforceable against him.
Data protection Processing of personal information. The claimant Russian national issued proceedings against the defendant National Crime Agency, asserting that processing his personal data whilst he was protected from extradition to Russia by reason of his refugee status was unnecessary and unlawful. The defendant sought the striking out of the claim or summary judgment. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been too weak to outweigh the defendant's data-processing functions. Accordingly, that amounted to a compelling reason why there should be a trial so that those matters could be investigated.
Sentence Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against a confiscation order, held that funds and credits paid into the defendant's bank account by a friend, whom he had allowed to use the account, had fallen squarely within the benefit provisions of s76(4) of the .