Case Law: Boyd v Ineos, “Persons unknown” injunctions against future protest action – Charlotte Gilmartin

23 04 2019

In Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 515, the Court of Appeal handed down a fascinating judgment exploring the tension between the exercise of the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression and the protection of property rights. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: R (P, G and W) and Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department, A criminal record or a clean slate? – Matthew Flinn

8 02 2019

In the case of R (P, G and W) and Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Anor [2019] UKSC 3 the Supreme Court upheld challenges to the legal regimes for disclosing criminal records in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, finding them to be incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Read the rest of this entry »





Data Protection: A Doctor’s right to be forgotten – Rosalind English

31 01 2019

An Amsterdam court has ruled that Google should delist an unofficial “blacklist” of doctors maintained by a discussion group on the internet. This is said to be the first right to be forgotten case involving medical negligence by a doctor. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: R (Jefferies and ors) v Home Secretary and anor, Judgment leaves claimants ‘hacked off’ – Katie Ayres

16 12 2018

By Judgment handed down on 29 November 2018 (R (on the Application of Jefferies and Others) v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport [2018] EWHC 3239 (Admin)) Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the Claimants claims for Judicial Review of the Government’s decision to not embark on ‘Part 2’ of the Leveson Inquiry. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Lloyd v Google, No compensation for Google data breaches – Rosalind English

13 10 2018

Most of us resignedly consent to the use of cookies in order to use internet sites, vaguely aware that these collect information about our browsing habits in order to target us with advertisements. It’s annoying, but does it do us any harm? That is the question that came up before Warby J in a preliminary application for a representative claim in the case of Lloyd v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB). Read the rest of this entry »





The new German social media law: a risk worth taking? An ‘extended look’ – Stefan Theil

20 02 2018

The German Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz) (literally: Law on the improvement of law enforcement in social networks and known as ‘NetzDG’) has attracted much media attention, e.g. here and here, since fully entering into force on 1 January 2018. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: R (P) v Home Secretary, The right to put your past behind you and Article 8 – David Hart QC

17 05 2017

In the case of R (o.t.a P & others) v. Secretary of State for Home Department & others ([2017] EWCA Civ 321)  the Court of Appeal upheld challenges to the system of the police retaining information about past misconduct. It held that the system, even after a re-boot in 2013 in response to an earlier successful challenge, remains non-compliant with Article 8Read the rest of this entry »





The Front Page in the Digital Age: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies publishes report on protecting journalists’ sources – Jo Moore

7 03 2017

A study raising concerns about journalists’ ability to protect sources and whistleblowers was launched in the House of Lords last Wednesday. The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), in collaboration with the Guardian, has published the results of a research initiative into protecting journalists’ sources and whistleblowers in the current technological and legal environment. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, CJEU, Tele Sverige/Watson: Who sees you when you’re sleeping? Who knows when you’re awake? – Angela Patrick

21 12 2016

hacking-1685092_960_720In an early holiday delivery, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) today handed down its judgment in the joined cases of Tele Sverige/Watson & Ors (C-203/15/C-698/15), this morning. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Re (W), Can non-parties appeal critical findings made in a judgment which infringe their human rights? – Jo Moore

9 12 2016

silhouetteIn Re: W (A child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal considered a case in which a Family Court judgment was severely critical of two witnesses and the applicant local authority. In an oral “bullet point” judgment at the end of the hearing, the Judge found that the witnesses, a social worker (‘SW’) and a police officer (‘PO’), had improperly conspired to prove certain allegations regardless of the truth, or professional guidelines. Read the rest of this entry »