Category: Information

Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc: QBD 16 May 2018

Judges:

Langstaff J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1123 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket Plc QBD 1-Dec-2017
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.
Cited – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616161

Scotland for Animals v Scottish Ministers: SIC 5 Jun 2014

SIC Cross-Party Group on Animal Welfare – On 8 July 2013, Scotland for Animals (SfA) asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for correspondence relating to the Cross Party Group on Animal Welfare (the CPGAW). The Ministers responded that the request was vexatious. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the request was vexatious.

Judges:

Cross-Party Group on Animal Welfare

Citations:

[2014] ScotIC 119 – 2014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.535091

P v Wozencroft (Expert Evidence: Data Protection): FD 2002

The court discussed the discretion given under the section: ‘I remind myself, however, that under s 7(9) the claimant would have had to establish that the defendant had failed to comply with a request for disclosure in contravention of s 7(1), and, importantly, that, even in that event, the subsection confers upon the court a discretion as to whether to order the disclosure of such documents. I consider it of extreme significance that, even though s 7(1) speaks in terms of entitlement to disclosure on the part of the subject of data, the court is given a discretion, by the use of the word ‘may’ rather than any word such as ‘must’ or ‘shall’, as to whether to make the order.
It is also important to note that an analogous discretion is reflected in the terminology of s 14. As has been seen, s 14 is engaged only if the court is satisfied that personal data are inaccurate; and, even then, a discretion arises as to whether to order their rectification.’

Judges:

Wilson J

Citations:

[2002] 2 FLR 1118, [2002] EWHC 1724 (Fam)

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984 7(9)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Family

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.186302

In re J (a Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure): FD 9 May 2003

A report had been prepared by the local authority into the way in which it had handled the proceedings. The guardian sought to inspect the report and the authority resisted, claiming public interest immunity.
Held: The report had been prepared in connection with the matters underlying the proceedings. By virtue of the Act, the child’s guardian had the right to inspect all such documents irrespective of any rule of law or enactment otherwise preventing disclosure. The child had been removed from the home and medically examined, but the mother had not been given the true reasons for the action. Later, before the guardian was appointed, the authority also misled the court. An order for disclosure had been made by the magistrates court, but resisted by the authority. Questions of Public Interest Immunity simply did not arise. Confidentiality would not be lost by disclosure to the guardian.

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

Times 16-May-2003, Gazette 14-Aug-2003

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 42(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – In Re R (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) CA 18-Jul-2000
A guardian ad litem, representing one child, was entitled to see a report, prepared by the child protection committee of the local authority, which related to the death of the child’s sibling. Such a report constituted a report prepared by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government, Information

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.182217