The applicant had mistakenly disclosed confidential personal information in answer to a data request. It sought an injunction restricting its redistribution after the recipient refused to return it and threatened to pass it on. The defendant said later that he had posted the material back to the IPCC. He failed however to comply with an order requiring him to answer certain questions about others involved.
Held: The court confirmed the order and gave its reasons for making it. It was important to recognise that the claimant had duties to protect the Article 8 rights of third parties. The claimant said that ‘there is a good arguable case that there has been a breach of the duties of confidentiality owed both to itself and to the other person, that further breaches are threatened, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The evidence amply establishes this to be so.’
Tugendhat J
[2012] EWHC 271 (QB)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP (No. 2) SC 23-Jun-2010
The claimant had object to a Control order made against him and against a decision that he be deported. He had been protected by an anonymity order, but the Court now considered whether it should be continued.
Held: AP had already by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.451440