Poeton Industries Ltd and Another v Michael Ikem Horton: CA 26 May 2000

The claimant sought damages and an injunction after their former employee set up in business, using, they said, information about their manufacturing procedures and customers obtained whilst employed by them. The defendant appealed the injunction granted in respect of the use of production techniques (electro-plating).
Held: The employer had not done enough to establish that the imformation he sought to protect was confidential and the injunction was discharged.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCoco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
CitedPrinters and Finishers Limited v Holloway 1965
The court considered the questions arising from the use of information acquired by an employee during his employment after that employment had ended, and noted that information the future use of which will not be restrained is information not . .
CitedFaccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .
CitedFaccenda Chicken v Fowler ChD 1984
The court was asked to restrain the plaintiff’s a former sales manager making use of information acquired during his employment which information the employer claimed to be confidential. F had set up a business in a similar field, the marketing of . .
CitedLancashire Fires Ltd v S A Lyons and Co Ltd CA 1996
It was claimed that a loan to the employee from a customer of the employer coupled with an exclusive supply agreement by the employee as and when the competing business becomes operative was in breach of an non-compete clause.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Employment

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135746

Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte K and Another: 1 Nov 1989

Application was made for the disclosure of a local authorities social worker records, during the course of care proceedings after allegations of secual abuse had been made against the parents.
Held: The court must look to the interests of the child: ‘as part and parcel of its general welfare, not only in having its own voice sympathetically heard and its own needs sensitively considered but also in ensuring that its parents are given every proper opportunity of having the evidence fairly tested and preparing themselves in advance to meet the grave charges against them.’ and ‘Local authorities therefore have a high duty in law, not only on grounds of general fairness but also in the direct interest of a child whose welfare they serve, to be open in the disclosure of all relevant material affecting that child in their possession or power (excluding documents protected on established grounds of public immunity) which may be of assistance to the natural parent or parents in rebutting charges against one or both of them of in any way ill-treating the child.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ and Waite J

Citations:

[1990] 1 FLR 330

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDurham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.467126

Edate Advertising (Area Of Freedom, Security And Justice): ECJ 29 Mar 2011

ECJ (Opinion) Area of Freedom, Security And Justice – Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction ‘in tort or quasi-delict’ – Violation of personal rights that may have been committed by means of publishing information on Internet – Article 5, Section 3 – Definition of ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ – Applicability Shevill jurisprudence of the Court of Justice – Directive 2000/31/EC – Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Determination of the existence of a conflict rule on rights of personality.

Citations:

C-509/09, [2011] EUECJ C-509/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, Directive 2000/31/EC 3

Jurisdiction:

European

Information, Jurisdiction

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.431349

Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 18 Jun 2013

The claimant was an observer at a demonstration in central London. Along with others she was detained within a police cordon. She was told she would not be released until she allowed herself to be photographed. This was done in an aggressive and intimidating manner. She said that this was involuntary and that it had been unlawful.
Held: The photographs had been obtained unlawfully and must be destroyed. They could not be retained.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
CitedWright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Information, Police

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510923

HM Treasury (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Nov 2006

ICO The complainant submitted a request to Her Majesty’s Treasury for all relevant papers relating to the decision to reduce income tax by one pence in the pound announced in the 1999 Budget. HMT advised that the information was refused by virtue of section 35(1)(a) of the Act. HMT also concluded that the public interest was not served by releasing the requested information. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is not satisfied that HMT dealt with the request in accordance with the Act. The Commissioner finds that HMT failed to respond to the request within the timescales provided by the Act and failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner also found that the refusal notice given to the complainant was less helpful than he would hope is generally the case, although he notes that in this instance the complainant does not appear to have been disadvantaged as a result. The Commissioner is particularly critical of the fact that the public authority gave the impression to the applicant that significantly more information was held than was the case. The Commissioner finds, moreover, that although HMT was correct to regard the requested information as falling within the terms of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the Act, he does not consider that the public interest favoured the maintenance of the exemption. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKICO FS50104994

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.533602

Planning Inspectorate (Decision Notice): ICO 19 Feb 2013

ICO The complainant requested legal advice from the Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government (‘the authority’) on the subject of the suitability of the Householder Appeal Service’ HAS’) for the consideration of applications for vehicle access. The authority refused to supply the information, citing the exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority correctly withheld the information using regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 12.5.b – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0463490

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.528007

Planning Inspectorate (Decision Notice): ICO 2 Apr 2013

ICO The complainant has requested information about a concluded planning inquiry. The Commissioner’s decision is that no information is held save for that which has previously been made available to the complainant. No further action is required.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FER0474711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.528219

Catt v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 30 May 2012

The claimant objected to the retention of data about him as to his attendance at assorted political protests. He had not engaged in criminality.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1471 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Data Protection Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromCatt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Others CA 14-Mar-2013
The appellant sought an order requiring the defendant to to remove entries against his name in police databases. He had been a frequent protester against what he saw to be unlawful activities of a defence contractor. Other members of his group had . .
At First InstanceCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459822

Planning Inspectorate (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Aug 2012

The complainant requested information relating to an appeal decision report. The Planning Inspectorate responded, providing some information and advising the complainant that it did not hold additional information beyond that which has been disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Planning Inspectorate has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds relevant to the scope of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50433290

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.529764

Department of Health and Social Care v The Information Commissioner: UTAA 27 Oct 2020

Information Rights – section 35(1(a) FOIA exemption ‘chilling effect’ and ‘safe space’ – section 2(2)(b) balancing exercise – whether the FTT misdirected itself in law and failed to give proper weight to the prejudice to the public interest that would be caused by disclosure – whether the FTT failed to place any weight on the harm that disclosure would cause to the public interest in protecting the ‘safe space’ for policy formulation – whether the tribunal misdirected itself on the question of ‘live’ policy formulation – whether the FTT was wrong to focus on the contents of documents as individual packets of information rather than considering the documents as a whole or considering the whole of the information in a document as a package.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 299 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656583

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 3 Feb 2020

The complainant has requested a summary of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to provide this, citing the exemptions at section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed a small amount of information but continued to rely on the exemptions cited for the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to withhold the remaining information. No steps are required.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50858667

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.653505

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 7 Jan 2020

The complainant has requested video footage from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) of an incident it attended. The MPS refused to provide this, citing the exemptions at sections 30 (investigations and proceedings) and 40 (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is engaged. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50876952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.651382

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 27 Apr 2020

The complainant has requested information about fabricated crime reports from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS advised that to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to cite section 12(2) but she does find a breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50906866

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.651522

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 27 Jan 2020

The complainant has requested information about three named parties from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). In compliance with a First-tier Tribunal ruling, the MPS confirmed holding relevant information. However, it refused to disclose it citing sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and, in the alternative, 24(1) (national security), as well as sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0087 under appeal.
FOI 24: Complaint not upheld FOI 23: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50883491

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.651383

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 10 Sep 2020

The complainant has requested information about an alleged investigation from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information, citing the exemptions at sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO IC-38002-N1S4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.656063

Islington Council (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Feb 2011

On 13 May 2008 the complainant made a request to Islington Council for details of accounts for a specific named estate for the year 2007/08. Following consultation with the Council the complainant submitted a second request concerning the Council’s housing stock. The Council responded outside the 20 working day time limit disclosing the information with regards to the second request and withholding information pertaining to the first request under section 12(1) of the Act. The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the Council’s delay in dealing with his requests, the estimate of the costs that would be incurred in complying with the first request, the Council’s failure to issue a fees notice and the form and format the disclosed information pertaining to the second request had been provided in. The Commissioner finds the public authority to be in breach of sections 10(1) and 17(1) but not sections 1(1)(a),11(1) or 12(1) of the Act and requires the Council to take no further remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 11 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50265449

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.530217

Barnet London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 1 Nov 2005

ICO On 18/1/05 the complainant requested information relating to the Council’s housing allocation scheme. On 15/2/05 the Council replied stating that a fee would be payable for the requested information. On 24/2/05 the complainant wrote to the Council questioning the proposed fee and repeating their information request. The Council failed to reply to the letter but, following intervention by the Information Commissioner’s Office, they provided some of the information on 22/7/05 and undertook to supply the remaining information without charge. However, the Council had not supplied any further information at the date of issuing the Decision Notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not responded to in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act and the Decision Notice requires the Council to provide the complainants with the remaining information.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2005] UKICO FS50068971

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.533279

Barnet London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Jul 2013

The complainant made 23 requests to the London Borough of Barnet (the ‘Council’), all of which were refused on the grounds that they were vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Council reviewed its decision in relation to two of the 23 requests during the investigation and decided that it would be appropriate to provide responses. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Council properly applied section 14(1) to the remaining 21 requests. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2013] UKICO FS50480128

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.528409

Archer v Williams: QBD 3 Jul 2003

The claimant brought an action for breach of confidence against a former employee.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1670 (QB), [2003] EMLR 38

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Employment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271068

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 3 Dec 2012

The complainant requested correspondence and legal advice relating to the Artist’s Resale Rights. The Intellectual Property Office (‘the IPO’) provided copies of correspondence but withheld the legal advice under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPO correctly applied section 42 to some of the information, but other information is not exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the IPO to disclose to the complainant the requested information which it has so far withheld, subject to the redactions as highlighted in the confidential annex.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50454264

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.530083

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Jul 2010

The complainant requested information that had been withheld from a specified individual. This related to the way that an earlier request had been handled by the public authority and the legal advice that was commissioned. The public authority issued a response and explained that it believed that all the relevant recorded information was exempt by virtue of section 42(1) [legal professional privilege] and that the public interest in maintaining that exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The complainant requested an internal review and the public authority upheld its original decision. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case. He has determined that the information was covered by legal professional advice privilege and he has determined that the public authority was correct that the public interest in maintaining that exemption did outweigh the public interest in disclosure in this case. He has therefore finds that section 42(1) has been applied correctly and upholds the public authority’s position. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50301299

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.531557

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 16 Feb 2011

The complainant requested six items of information that had been withheld previously in relation to a different request and considered by the Commissioner in FS50301299. This concerned the legal advice that was commissioned about how the public authority was to handle an earlier request. The public authority issued a response and explained that it believed that all the relevant recorded information was exempt by virtue of section 42 [legal professional privilege] and that the public interest in maintaining that exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. It did not offer an internal review given that the Commissioner had already considered the information previously. The Commissioner has carefully considered this case. He has determined that the information was covered by legal professional advice privilege and he continues to believe that the public authority was correct that the public interest in maintaining that exemption did outweigh the public interest in disclosure in this case. He has therefore finds that section 42(1) has been applied correctly and upholds the public authority’s position. He did find a procedural breach of section 17(1)(b), but requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0072 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2011] UKICO FS50351439

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.530216

Intellectual Property Office (Decision Notice): ICO 6 Jul 2010

The complainant requested relevant recorded information about how the public authority dealt with a request for information in respect of a complaint made by him. He received some information but disputed the application of section 42(1) in respect to the legal advice that had been received. The public authority applied section 42(1) [legal professional privilege] to this information. The Commissioner has decided that this information is the complainant’s personal data and that the public authority should have applied section 40(1) to it and considered the request under the Data Protection Act (the -?DPA’). He will conduct a further assessment under section 42 of the DPA and the result will be communicated to the complainant. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2010] UKICO FS50300314

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.531556

Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 6 Apr 2020

The complainant has requested specific information about the Great Train Robbery from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it clarified that it was relying on section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information in accordance with section 12(2) of the FOIA. She also finds that it complied with its section 16 obligations to provide advice and assistance.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50886023

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.651521

West Mercia Police (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Oct 2009

ICO The complainant requested a report commissioned by the police as part of an investigation into a perjury allegation made by him. The public authority refused to either confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 30(3) (information relating to investigations), 38(2) (endangerment to health and safety) and 40(5)(b)(i) (personal information relating to third parties). The Commissioner finds that any information falling within the scope of the request would be the personal data of the complainant and so the request should have more properly been handled as a subject access request made under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached section 17(1)(c) by failing to explain adequately why section 38(2) was believed to be engaged; and section 17(3)(a) by failing to explain the public interest test adequately in relation to sections 30(3) and 38(2).
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2009] UKICO FS50237840

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.532263