swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Information - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
P -v- Wozencroft (Expert Evidence: Data Protection); FD 2002 - [2002] 2 FLR 1118; [2002] EWHC 1724 (Fam)
In re R (Care: disclosure: nature of proceedings) [2002] 1 FLR 755; [2001] EWHC Fam 8; [2002] Fam Law 253
2002
FD
Charles J
Children, Information
In care proceedings, unproved allegations of harm were abandoned, before being rejected by the court. The threshold criteria were satisfied on a different ground, namely, neglect and emotional harm. Held: As matters stood the local authority and the court should assess risk on the basis that the allegations of sexual abuse were just that and nothing more. Part of the background, and relevant as such, was that the allegations had been made. Also part of the background, and likewise relevant, was the fact that the allegations had not been proved and, as matters stood, would not be proved. It would be wrong for the local authority to deal with the family on the basis that it believed the children had been sexually abused. That overall approach accorded with the current reality.
Charles J said: "general statements that one sees in textbooks and hears that social work records are covered by public interest immunity, which is a widely stated class claim, should now be consigned to history."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Lilly Icos Ltd -v- Pfizer Ltd (No 2) Times, 28 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 2; [2002] 1 WLR 2253
23 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Longmore
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, Information
The respondent sought an order to maintain the confidentiality of documents disclosed during patent revocation proceedings. It now appealed an order refusing confidentiality. Held: Under normal circumstances, a party requesting such an order must provide clear reasons for it to be granted. The court should recognise the lack of protection which would attach to a document disclosed during proceedings but then, however it arose, coming into third party hands. In this case, the figures sought to be protected were figures for marketing costs. Patent cases were subject to the same general rules as any other cases, but did present some particular problems, and were subject to some particular considerations. The sensitivity of such figures was recognised, and the court should have granted protection, allowing for the limited part it played in the trial.
Civil Procedure Rules 31.22
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Ivan William Allan -v- Glory Anne Clibbery (1); CA 30-Jan-2002 - Times, 05 February 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 45; [2002] Fam 261; [2002] 1 FLR 565
China National Petroleum Corporation and others -v- Fenwick Elliott, Techint International Construction Company [2002] EWHC 60 (Ch)
31 Jan 2002
ChD
The Vice-Chancellor
Construction, Intellectual Property, Information, Legal Professions
In the course of a dispute, the claimants concluded that the respondents had acquired documents of a confidential nature, and sought restoration and disclosure of the source. The solicitors for the respondents suggested that the claimants were in breach of disclosure orders, and that the materials were not privileged, and would be subject to disclosure in any event. It was then alleged that the respondent firm had acted improperly in seeking privileged information from employees of the claimants. It was argued that the sources of the information should be disclosed, but the respondents argued that this might put them at personal risk. In this case there was no evidence of privilege inhering, and no specific allegations, and the respondents claim of privilege attaching to his interviews of witnesses succeeded. The claim had no prospect of success and was struck out.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
T and others -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal and G [2002] EWHC 247 (Admin)
22 Feb 2002
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Scott Baker
Health, Administrative, Information
The applicant's former partner, G, had been detained under the Act. She had obtained an injunction to keep him away, but whilst exercising staying contact with her child, he had killed his own parents, and was now detained. The tribunal had ordered his conditional release. She sought a copy of the decision, and now sought judicial review of the refusal to supply a copy. An order had been made that the tribunal should place a note of her views among the hearing papers, and one was sent, but was not so considered. Held: The tribunal argued that the tribunal's activities were patient centered, not victim centered. It had never exercised its discretion to publicise a decision to a third party. The claimant argued the tribunal as a creature of statute had no jurisdiction beyond its statutory powers. Although she had no reason to be told of some elements, it might be that she should know of a condition as to residence, but not other matters such as the assessment of the risk he now presented. The tribunal had a discretion which it had failed to exercise. It should reconsider the decision as to the making of information available to the claimant and in the express light of her letter.
Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 12 - Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (S.I 1983 No. 942) 21(5)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
H (A Healthcare Worker) -v- Associated Newspapers Limited Times, 19 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 195
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Health, Information, Human Rights, Media, Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court
The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his private patients for notification. He had obtained an order under the rules to protect his identity within the proceedings. Held: The order against the newspaper would better have been obtained as part of the first action, but the two could be consolidated. The order had allowed the authority to be named, but restricted the newspaper publishing anything which might lead directly or indirectly to his identification. Both parties challenged parts of the order. The order preventing the naming of the Health Authority was intended only to protect the identity of the worker, and was properly made. There was a balancing exercise to be had, and also there was a need to respect the privacy of those who had been treated by H. The Health authority also had interests which it had a duty to protect. The court had power to protect its identity to avoid a situation which would seriously interfere with its statutory duties. The consequence of identifying the authority would include also the inevitable discovery of the identity of H. N should not be identified. H must hand over such records of his private patients as was necessary to allow a look-back exercise, and identify any who might have been at risk.
Data Protection Act 1988 - Civil Procedure Rules 39.2.(2) - Human Rights Act 1998 Sch1 Art 10
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Al-Fayed -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2002] UKIT NSA3
28 Feb 2002
IT
Information
[ Bailii ]
A -v- B plc and Another (Flitcroft -v- MGN Ltd); CA 11-Mar-2002 - Times, 13 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] 3 WLR 542; [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2003] QB 195; [2002] 1 FLR 1021; [2002] UKHRR 457; (2002) 12 BHRC 466; [2002] HRLR 25; [2002] 2 FCR 158; [2002] 2 All ER 545; [2002] Fam Law 415; [2002] EMLR 21
Campbell -v- Frisbee [2002] EWHC 328 (Ch)
14 Mar 2002
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
Employment, Damages, Information, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights
The defendant appealed a summary judgement on the claimant's claim with respect to her alleged disclosure of details Miss Campbell's private life. The claimant sought an action for account of profits for breach of the terms of a contract of service. The defendant claimed that a violent assault by the claimant on her was a repudiation of the contract. There were some issues which must go to trial, but the claimant obtained judgement on those matters relating to her private life. Held: To defeat an application for summary judgment the respondent must show some 'real prospect' of success, even if improbable. Would the obligation of confidence be discharged by a repudiation? Restrictive covenants had been considered before, but not obligations of confidence. The Photo Production case established that not all obligations were defeated by a repudiation. The obligation of confidence survived any repudiation. The defendant argued that the restriction restricted her right of free speech. Here there was no overwhelming public interest argument. There was no prospect of success on this point and the appeal failed.
Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Persey and Others) -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Times, 28 March 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin)
15 Mar 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Human Rights, Administrative, Agriculture, Information, Judicial Review, Media
The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a failure to hold the enquiry in public infringed the applicant's human rights. Held: The distinction between freedom of expression, and of access to information was central. Art 10 created no obligation to provide a public forum for discussion of issues. On the question of whether there is a presumption that an inquiry would be held in public (Wagstaff), this must be approached on a case by case basis with no presumption either way.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Stevens -v- Plymouth City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 388
26 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke
Information, Health, Local Government
Mental Health Act 1983
[ Bailii ]
Campbell -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd Times, 29 March 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 499 (QB); [2003] QB 633
27 Mar 2002
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Morland
Media, Information, Human Rights
The applicant sought damages for the defendant having infringed her privacy in several ways, including under the 1998 Act. The defendant argued that she had invited publicity and had misled the public as to her drug problem. A photograch had been taken as she left a drug rehabilitation group meeting. Held: The fact that she was receiving treatment for her addiction was sensitive personal information under the Data Protection Act, and had the mark and badge of confidentiality. The three requirements in the first data protection principle under section 4 of the 1998 Act were cumulative. Compensation was governed by section 13, and "damage" in sections 13(1) and 13(2)(a) meant special or financial damages not distress in the shape of injury to feelings. The defendant had shown a proper public interest in disclosing her addiction, but not the nature and occasion of her treatment.
Data Protection Act 1998 4 13 Sch 3 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 10.2
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Information Commissioner -v- Islington London Borough Council Times, 05 June 2002; Gazette, 11 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1036 (Admin)
24 May 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Hallett
Information, Crime
The commissioner appealed a dismissal of her case against a council, complaining that the council knowingly or recklessly used personal data for the collection of council tax, for which registration had expired. Held: It was not necessary to show that the individual officer making use of the data had been aware of the breach. The council itself was the legal person using the data. The knowledge and actions of the directing minds of a corporate body must be taken together with the actions of those to whom administrative functions were delegated. To hold otherwise would make it impossible for any large organisation to be prosecuted under the Act.
Data Protection Act 1984 4
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Lord Ashcroft -v- Attorney General and Department for International Development [2002] EWHC 1122 (QB)
31 May 2002
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Gray
Information, Torts - Other, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights
The claimant was the subject of confidential reports prepared by the defendants which were leaked to newspapers causing him damage. He sought leave to amend his claim to add claims for breach of the Data Protection Act and for public misfeasance. Under the Civil Procedure Rules a new claim should be allowed if it is arguable. It was claimed that the failure to investigate the leak by the public authority itself amounted to an infringement of the claimant's human rights. However an investigation into the investigation of the source of the leak would be an improper diversion of the case. A case of misfeasance required the clearest of proof. There was none against the third named defendant, and the associated claim would not be allowed. Lateness is not to be a ground for refusing a claim for aggravated damages. Derogatory statements by third parties could not be relied upon to found a claim for aggravated damages.
courtcommentary.com DPA 1998 s4(4) creates free-standing duty on data processors to comply with principles in Sch 1 Part I. Commissioner enforces compliance with principles, but his jurisdiction is non-exclusive so far as claims for damages by data subjects are concerned
Data Protection Act 1984 - Data Protection Act 1998 4(4) - Civil Procedure Rules 17.3.5
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Cream Holdings Limited and others -v- Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Limited; 5-Jul-2002 - Unreported, 5 July 2002
NTL Group Limited -v- Ipswich Crown Court Times, 06 August 2002; Gazette, 08 August 2002
22 Jul 2002
QBD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Curtis
Information, Police
The applicant operated an e-mail system. E-mails would normally be deleted after being read. The police sought an order under the 1984 Act for certain emails to be retained in connection with an investigation. The applicant argued that this would put them in conflict with the 2000 Act, by requiring them to intercept the e-mails. Held: Parliament could not have meant the 2000 Act to defeat the powers under the 1984 Act. No damage would be done, since the order sought retention only, and a further order would be required before any emails were disclosed. The police had the necessary power to make the request, and the applicant would not be in breach in complying with it.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9 Sch 1 - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 1 2(7) 2(8)
M G -v- The United Kingdom Times, 11 October 2002; 39393/98; [2002] ECHR 627; 39393/98; [2002] ECHR 632; [2010] ECHR 1861
24 Sep 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Information
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
The applicant complained that in denying to him access to his social services records, they had not allowed him to discover his personal history to come to terms with his abuse. Information had been provided in summary form only, and other information denied on the basis that it had been created before the 1987 Act. Held: The failure to provide the records violated his Article 8 rights. The system denied him any right to the information, and no right or means of appeal against the refusal. There had been a failure to fulfil the positive obligations to the claimant. This situation is remedied for records after the coming into force of the Data Protection Act 1998.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Access to Personal Files Act 1987
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Campbell -v- Mirror Group Newspapers plc Times, 16 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1373; [2003] 2 WLR 80; [2003] QB 633; [2003] 1 All ER 224; [2003] EMLR 39
14 Oct 2002
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Chadwick LJ, Keene Lj
Information, Media, Human Rights
The newspaper appealed a finding that it had infringed the claimant's privacy by publishing a photograph of her leaving a drug addiction clinic. Held: The claimant had courted publicity, and denied an involvement in drugs. The defence of qualified privilege in defamation is not to be equated with the rules in privacy cases. The photograph was an essential part of demonstrating the deceit of the claimant. Given the story, the addition of the photograph was not particularly significant. If the publication was in the public interest, the journalist had to have some latitude. The balance between the Convention created rights of privacy and the freedom of the press is still being developed. The 1998 Act exemption was given to the data, once established, and therefore applied at all stages of its use. "In interpreting the Act it is appropriate to look to the Directive for assistance. The Act should, if possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Directive. Furthermore, because the Act has, in large measure, adopted the wording of the Directive, it is not appropriate to look for the precision in the use of language that is usually to be expected from the parliamentary draftsman. A purposive approach to making sense of the provisions is called for." and "The development of the law of confidentiality since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force has seen information described as 'confidential' not where it has been confided by one person to another, but where it relates to an aspect of an individual's private life which he does not choose to make public. We consider that the unjustifiable publication of such information would better be described as breach of privacy rather than breach of confidence."
Data Protection Act 1998 32 - European Convention on Human Rights - Directive 95/46/EC
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Maloney -v- Alexander Johnson (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1544
14 Oct 2002
CA
Information, Legal Professions
Data Protection Act 1998
[ Bailii ]
Durant -v- Financial Services Authority Unreported, 24 October 2002
24 Oct 2002
CC
Judge Zeidman QC
Information
(Edmonton County Court) The claimant sought disclosure under the Act from the FSA of its file relating to his dealings with Barclays Bank. Though the claim generally failed, the court considered how it would have exercised his discretion under section 7(9). He gave a number of reasons why, even if the claimant had otherwise established his case, he would nonetheless have exercised his discretion against him: "First, I cannot see that the information could be of any practical value to the appellant. Secondly, the purpose of the legislation it seems to me is to ensure that records of an inaccurate nature are not kept about an individual. A citizen needs to know what the record says in order to have an opportunity of remedying an error or false information. In this case the appellant seeks disclosure not to correct an error but to fuel a separate collateral argument that he has either with Barclays bank or with the FSA, litigation which is in any event doomed to failure. I am entirely satisfied on the facts of the case that the FSA have acted at all times in good faith, and indeed there has been no suggestion to the contrary from the appellant; his argument is with Barclays bank not with the FSA."
Data Protection Act 1998 7(9)
1 Citers