Below we present a compiled summary of our highly popular introduction to the concept of privacy under English Law, this covers early developments, the integration of private individuals rights, the widening of the concept and early 21st Century data protection issues: Continue reading
The European Data Protection Board issued a statement on 13 March 2019 urging the European Authorities to implement the new ePrivacy Regulation (the “Regulation”).
The Regulation itself sits alongside the existing GDPR framework and focuses on email marketing and cookies consent.
Debate has been generated around the extent to which the Regulation and the GDPR practically sit alongside each other to ensure that the, now onerous, data protection regime does not duplicate obligations. The Panopticon Blog has an excellent post covering this issue from Robin Hopkins. Continue reading
An excellent piece on recent developments in phone hacking cases- a consideration of the News of the World litigation settlements by Brian Cathcart
An excellent and highly insightful piece written by Hugh Tomlinson QC on the application of the Article 8 right to privacy and a reconciliation with domestic law.
The Article 8 right to respect for private life has many facets and has often seemed in danger of uncontrolled expansion. The Court of Human Rights has often noted that private life is “not susceptible to exhaustive definition”, embracing “multiple aspects of the person’s physical and social identity”.
View original post 1,313 more words
From the hallmark case of Campbell and the development of breach of privacy as an action, it is clear that the integration of privacy as a concept in English law is still in its formative years. In Part III we consider some of the significant cases post-Campbell to date, bringing into relief key issues and developments in privacy law, many of which are ongoing or merit further consideration by the courts. In particular, the broad nature of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy becomes clear (covering issues of children’s privacy and biometric data retention) and the degree to which this can be qualified against other rights is explored.
We would like to refer readers to an excellent article from the blog of Michael Geist an authoritative academic from the University of Ottowa, tackling privacy law issues in Canada. The piece considers recent movements by the Canadian Privacy Comissioner in legislative reform and the importance of robust and consistent enforcement of privacy laws.
On 29 November 2018, the Government published its response to the 2013 consultation on costs protection in defamation and privacy claims. In particular, the written statement by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice summarizes the amendments to costs provisions, raising access to justice concerns.
In short, the Government has decided to implement s.44 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LAPSO) Act 2012, making claimant lawyers success fees under conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”) unrecoverable from defendants in defamation and privacy cases commencing 6 April 2019. The consolation is that after-the-event insurance (“ATE”) fees remain recoverable. This article considers how these changes perpetuate imperfect solutions that harm access to justice.