In this podcast, I discuss data protection and the GDPR with Hatti Suvari. Get Legally Speaking is a podcast series that is supported by the Bar Council, which aims to explain different areas of law to the public. This is Part 1 of a series of podcasts related to data protection and privacy that will […]
Summary The Supreme Court considered three appeals; all involving the question of whether or not the costs regime involving Conditional Fee Agreements (‘CFA’s’) and After the Event Insurance (ATE’s) infringed a newspaper’s Article 10 rights. The cases and legislation mentioned, or made reference to, in this podcast are: Campbell v MGN (No 2)  […]
Summary His Highness Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdullah Al Alaoui of Morocco brought a defamation claim against Elaph Publishing Limited for an article published on the company’s news website in October 2014. The parties appealed, and cross-appealed, a decision in the High Court on an application for strike out/summary judgment, and an application to amend […]
This was an appeal in the Supreme Court concerning the scope of the duty of confidentiality that HMRC owes to taxpayers. Patrick McKenna founded Ingenious Media Holdings Plc (“Ingenious Media”), an investment and advisory group that specialised in the media industry. The group utilised tax relief schemes relevant to the industry; HMRC were investigating these […]
Summary In January 2016, the Court of Appeal discharged an interim injunction that prevented newspapers from publishing identification of celebrity PJS, or the facts or details relating to the sexual activities of PJS with two other people. The Court of Appeal discharged the injunction on the basis that the appearance of the information on the […]
Summary This appeal concerns the level of compensation awarded by Mr Justice Mann to victims of newspaper-driven phone hacking and blagging (Shobna Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited  EWHC 1482 (Ch)). In particular, the Court of Appeal considered the principles and method applied in arriving at the awards for compensation. It was argued by […]
This case involved three individuals who objected to the collection of information from their browsers by Google without their consent.