The applicant had been an employee. In the course of a dispute with her employer, she discovered that the principal had been collecting information about her telephone calls, emails and internet usage.
Held: The collection of such material without any explicit legal power by her employer, as a statutory body, was an abuse of her human rights in that it interfered with her privacy rights. Article 8(1) was engaged and the interference was not in accordance with domestic law. The events had predated the 2000 Act.
62617/00,  ECHR 253, Times 24-Apr-2007,  BHRC 216, (2007) 45 EHRR 37
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Cited – Imerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 27-Jul-2009
It was said that the defendant had taken private and confidential material from the claimant’s computer. The claimant sought summary judgement for the return of materials and destruction of copies. The defendant denied that summary judgement was . .
Cited – Fosh v Cardiff University EAT 23-Jan-2008
The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.250973