In a trial of liability for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, misuse of private information and breach of confidence: where a then employee of the D had made a copy of the Cs’ private/confidential information held on D’s payroll and uploaded it to the internet, was D liable either on a direct or vicarious liability basis?
Data Protection Act 1998 – Misuse of private information – Breach of confidence – Vicarious liability – DPP7
Malicious prosecution - drug and passport offences – witnessed by journalist - reported to police by journalist - C prosecuted - plea of guilty - prison sentence - Criminal Cases Review Commission - C alleges was innocent but 'set up' by journalist - CCRC recommends vacation of plea - Court vacates plea - Crown offers no evidence - not guilty verdict - C sues publisher for malicious prosecution - relies on set up to prove no reasonable and probable cause - summary judgment application by D - application granted - claim dismissed
Libel - MPs' expenses - Honest comment - Summary judgment - Justification - Jameel abuse - Summary judgment for D on honest comment - Residual claims dismissed as an abuse - Appeal - Single meaning rule - Alleged breach of rule by Judge - Single meaning rule applies to comment - Judge did not err - Jameel jurisdiction part of law's balancing of rights
Defamation - Libel - Defences - Reynolds privilege- Public interest - Responsible journalism - Letter to editor - Whether letter writer could rely on Reynolds privilege