MM V BC, RS and FACEBOOK IRELAND LTD  NIQB 60 15 June 2016
The Plaintiff was a married woman who had an affair with the Second Defendant, who at the time was in a relationship with the First Defendant. She alleged that she sent three photographs and texts of a sexual nature to the Second Defendant, which had come into the possession of the First Defendant. The First Defendant sent to the Claimant's husband, to two of her friends, and to a friend of her husband, an email to which the three photographs were attached. The First Defendant included in the email a threat to inflict "enough pain and humiliation matching my own during your love affair". The Claimant also alleged that the Second Defendant was on occasions violent and threatening to her, particularly while she was attempting to bring an end to the relationship. Full report here.
GULATI V MGN LTD  EWHC 1482 (Ch) These were 8 test claims based on infringements of privacy rights. The Defendant is the proprietor of three newspapers. The Claimants were persons in the public eye such as actors, sportsmen, or people with an association with such people. The proceedings, were in essence about the assessment of quantum as liability had been conceded. However there was an important sense in which liability still remained to be determined. Although the Defendant has admitted that there was illicit hacking activities conducted against all the Claimants in these cases, the extent of those activities was not admitted. This was not a trial in which the only hacking activities that matter were those which resulted in published articles. The claims were also based on hacking which did not result in articles (of which, on any footing, there was a substantial amount). It was necessary to reach conclusions on the level and intensity of that hacking in order to determine that aspect of the claims. Full report here.
HEGGLIN V PERSONS UNKNOWN AND GOOGLE INC  EWHC 2808 (QB) The Claimant was a businessman and investor who previously lived in London but was currently resident in Hong Kong. An anonymous individual, or possibly group of individuals, had been posting on a large number of internet websites abusive and defamatory allegations about the Claimant. There was no evidence to suggest that any of this was true. The claim form was issued on the 24th June 2014 against “persons unknown” (the First Defendant) and the claim against the Second Defendant was for an injunction pursuant to sections 10 and/or 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the European Directive 95/46/EC. There was also a claim for a Norwich Pharmacal Company and Other v HM Customs and Excise  UKHL 6 order requiring Google to disclose such information within its possession or control as might be necessary for the Claimant to identify the First Defendant. Full report here.
WELLER AND OTHERS V ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED  EWHC 1163 The Defendants published online an article about the Claimants and showed photographs of them. The article was illustrated with seven photographs which showed, among other matters, the faces of the children. The Claimants contendedthat the pictures of the children's faces should have been pixelated and brought these proceedings for damages for misuse of private information and breach of the Data Protection Act, and an injunction. The Defendant denied that the publication of the unpixelated photographs was wrongful, or that the Claimants are entitled to any relief. The article with the photographs received some 34,000 hits, of which 24,000 were from England and Wales. Full report here.
ABK V KDT AND ANOTHER  EWHC 1192 QB This was an application for an injunction. An order had already been granted to protect the Claimant's right to confidentiality and privacy in respect of certain personal photographs and information and, secondly to protect her from harassment in the form of communications addressed by the Defendants to herself and her employers to which she did not consent, and attempts by the Second Defendant to meet her, again without her consent. The Claimant was a married woman living with her husband. She had an affair with the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant was at the same time in a relationship with the First Defendant. The Claimant wanted to bring the affair to an end and to remain with her husband. The Second Defendant wished to continue the affair, and attempted to persuade the Claimant not to end it. The First Defendant was aggrieved when she discovered the affair. Full report here.
AMP V PERSONS UNKNOWN  EWHC 3454 This was an application for an interim injunction to prevent transmission, storage and indexing of any part of parts of certain photographic images which were claimed to belong to the Claimant.The Claimant’s mobile phone was stolen whilst she was at University. The phone contained sexual images of the Claimant, as well as other digital images of her family and friends. These images were uploaded onto a free onlilne media hosting service. The Claimant contacted the hosting service and the images were removed in about August 2008. Full report here.
C V D AND ANOTHER  EWHC 166(QB) From 1989 (when the Claimant was nine) to 1993, the Claimant was a pupil at the junior day school of an Abbey run by the Catholic Church (the Second Defendant). The First Defendant was the headmaster of the school throughout that period. The Claimant made three broad allegations of abuse against the First Defendant. There were occasions when the First Defendant touched his genitals whilst drying him with a towel after swimming lessons held by the local swimming paths. On another occasion the First Defendant videoed him and other members of his class whilst they were taking a shower. Thirdly the First Defendant had had pulled down his trousers and stared at his genitals. He had also fondled the Claimant’s penis. Both of these incidents had occurred in the infirmary of the school, and the first was called the “first infirmary incident” insofar as it did not involve any actual touching. Full report here.
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.