Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

The Right to Private Communication

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby b1969 » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:25 am

If you mean there may be an appeal to the Supreme Court, then yes, but I find it difficult to take para 51 of the judgment as anything but definitive

we have concluded in agreement with the judge that misuse of private information should now be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out the jurisdiction. This does not create a new cause of action. In our view, it simply gives the correct legal label to one that already exists


(and I don't think they were saying it should only be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out the jurisdiction).

I think this is the view of Professor Gavin Phillipson, whose paper Transforming Breach of Confidence? Towards a Common Law Right of Privacy under the Human Rights Act (Modern Law Review 66(5): 726-758) has been particularly influential (cited by Lord Nicholls in Campbell).
b1969
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby dls » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:51 am

Agreed, but - not having access to the article, so long as the rticlae as summarised: " reveals the extent to which confidence has in some areas been radically transformed into a privacy right in all but name; however it also seeks to expose the analytical and normative tensions that arise in the judgments between the values of confidentiality and privacy as overlapping but not coterminous concepts, due in part to the failure to resolve decisively the horizontal effect conundrum. This judicial ambivalence towards the reception of privacy as a legal right into English law may, it will argue, also be seen in the prevailing judicial approach to the resolution of the conflict between privacy and expression interests which, it will suggest, is both normatively and structurally inadequate."
We shall all be able to sleep soundly in our beds, confident that very few actually understand what is going on.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:20 am

b1969 wrote:This opens the door to claims for pure distress, and could be a game-changer. I blogged: data protection ambulance chasing?

There is an amusing notion.
I find it quite distressing to hear that I have had an accident that I was previously unaware of: it makes me suspect my sanity...
Could that mean that I would have a claim against the Ambulance Chasers that phone me up and tell me about it?
If so, could I get them chasing themselves?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10093
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby atticus » Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:04 am

Of course if you suffer amazing distress and nervous shock on hearing about your accident you have a claim against Terence from Mumbai who phoned to give you the bad news.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby Slartibartfast » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:05 pm

b1969 wrote:More important, in my view, is the fact that the Court of Appeal found that s13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which says that compensation for distress is not available in the absence of pecuniary damage) is incompatible with European law. This opens the door to claims for pure distress, and could be a game-changer. I blogged: data protection ambulance chasing?


Thanks for the blog piece, and also the link to :

Panopticon wrote:And thus, section 13(2) was no more. May it rest in peace. It has run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible.

What this means, of course, is a potential flood of DP litigation. All of a sudden, it will be worth bringing a claim for ‘mere’ distress even without pecuniary loss, and there can be no doubt many will do so. Every breach of the DPA now risks an affected data subject seeking damages. Those sums will invariably be small (no suggestion from the Court of Appeal that Article 23 requires a lot of money), and perhaps not every case will involve distress, but it will invariably be worth a try for the data subject. Legal costs defending such claims will increase. Any data controllers who were waiting for the new Regulation with its mega-fines before putting their house in order had better change their plans
"
http://www.panopticonblog.com/2015/03/2 ... ction-132/


I think this is a welcome change. Data protection is still not taken seriously by many public and commercial bodies, sensitive data is carelessly lost or wrongly disclosed, our private information is bought and sold for marketing, and perhaps worst of all the scandalous disclosure of our confidential NHS medical data. System managers and Data controllers who raise security concern are too often pushed aside with condescending remarks about 'keeping a sense of proportion'. I think a wave of compensation claims will be a very helpful curative for boardroom complacency.

And next please, can we have a similar wake-up call for FOI compliance.
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:26 am

atticus wrote:Of course if you suffer amazing distress and nervous shock on hearing about your accident you have a claim against Terence from Mumbai who phoned to give you the bad news.

That sounds like sarcasm. But why would I want top claim against Terence, I'd want to claim against the company that he works for.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10093
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The Right to Private Communication

Postby atticus » Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:22 pm

Terence works for Mumbai Callcentres Inc.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Previous

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron