The defendant employer had had confidential information of many of its staff taken and disclosed by a rogue employee. The employees now sought compensation. The main issue was whether the company was directly or vicariously liable for the tort. Held: The company were not directly liable, but were liable vicariously: ‘Adopting the broad and evaluative … Continue reading Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket Plc: QBD 1 Dec 2017
cw Crime – Computer misuse – Unauthorised access – Person using one computer to obtain from it unauthorised benefit – Whether unauthorised use of single computer within statute – ‘Access to any program or data held in any computer.The defendant was accused of misusing computer access to put himself in a position to carry out … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1991): CACD 16 Jun 1992
The DPP appealed against dismissal of a charge under the 1990 Act. The defendant had been involved in a campaign of mail-bombing the complainant’s computer systems with over a half million mails, causing a denial of service. The question was whether it was the defendant or the complainant who determined whether an email would be … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Lennon: Admn 11 May 2006
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier point. Judges: Keene LJ, Roderick Evans J Citations: [2009] EWHC 1069 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 351 … Continue reading Burwell v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1 May 2009
Policemen were convicted by the stipendiary magistrate of an offence under 1990 Act. They had requested a police computer operator to obtain information from the Police National Computer about the ownership and registration of two cars for their own purposes. They had no authority to make that request or to obtain that information for that … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Bignell and Another: QBD 6 Jun 1997
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur. Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence which is relevant is prima facie admissible in a criminal trial, although the trial judge has a discretion … Continue reading Regina v Sang: HL 25 Jul 1979
The parties were engaged in ancillary relief proceedings. The Husband complained that the wife had sought to use unlawfully obtained information, and in these proceedings sought delivery up of the material from the wife and her solicitors. He said that the information was subject to professional legal privilege and was otherwise confidential. They had admitted … Continue reading L v L and Hughes Fowler Carruthers: QBD 1 Feb 2007
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story showing a picture of her leaving a drug addiction clinic, along with … Continue reading Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1): HL 6 May 2004
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Wright J said: ‘But if an individual, by misusing or bypassing any relevant password, places in the files of the computer a bogus e-mail by pretending that the password holder is the author when he is not, then such an addition to such data is plainly unauthorised, as defined in section 17(8); intent to modify … Continue reading Zezev and Yarimaka v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and another: CACD 2002
