Privacy in English law

Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers in what situations an individual has a legal right to informational privacy - the protection of personal or private information from misuse or unauthorised disclosure.[1] Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognised no general right or tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.[2]

Definition

The earliest definition of privacy in English law was given by Thomas M. Cooley who defined privacy as "the right to be left alone".[3] In 1972 the Younger Committee, an inquiry into privacy stated that the term could not be defined satisfactorily. Again in 1990 the Calcutt Committee concluded that: "nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy".[3]

Common law

There is currently no freestanding right to privacy in common law.[4] This point was reaffirmed when the House of Lords ruled in Home Office v Wainwright (a case involving a strip search undertaken on the plaintiff Alan Wainwright while visiting Armley prison).[5] It has also been stated that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require the development of an independent tort of privacy.[6] In the absence of a common law right to privacy in English law torts such as the equitable doctrine breach of confidence,[7] torts linked to the intentional infliction of harm to the person[8] and public law torts relating to the use of police powers[9] have been used to fill a gap in the law. The judiciary has developed the law in an incremental fashion and have resisted the opportunity to create a new tort.[10]

Expansion of privacy laws

British Radio Jockey Sara Cox's case against The People newspaper was one of the first celebrity privacy cases. The media referred to the case as a "watershed". The disc jockey sued after the newspaper printed nude photographs of her taken while on her honeymoon. However the case was settled out of court and so did not establish a precedent.[11] The decision was seen as discrediting the Press Complaints Commission[12]

The expansion of the doctrine of breach of confidence under the Human Rights Act began with the Douglas v Hello! decision. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act requires English courts to give effect to the rights in the Convention when developing the common law. There is no need to show a pre-existing relationship of confidence where private information is involved and the courts have recognised that the publication of private material represents a detriment in itself.[6] The Human Rights act has horizontal effect in disputes between private individuals meaning that the Human Rights Act is just as applicable as if one party had been a public body.[13] Breach of confidence now extends to private information (regardless of whether it is confidential) so as to give effect to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Before this breach of confidence afforded "umbrella protection" to both personal and non-personal information.[1]

ECHR challenge

Following Max Mosley's successful action against the News of the World Newspaper for publishing details of his private life, he announced that he would challenge English law's implementation of the Article 8 right to privacy guaranteed when the Human Rights Act implemented the European Convention on Human Rights into English law.[14] The European Court of Human Rights was asked to rule on the issue of "prior notification". This would require journalists to approach the subject of any investigation and inform them of the details of any allegations made about them, therefore allowing an injunction to be claimed.[14]

Debate

The increasing protections afforded to the private lives of individuals has sparked debate as to whether English law gives enough weight to freedom of the press and whether intervention by Parliament would be beneficial. The editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye Ian Hislop has argued against the development of English privacy law. He told BBC's Panorama: "You don't have to prove it [an allegation] isn't true, you just have to prove that it's private by your definition. And in some of the cases the definition of privacy is pretty weak."[15] However, Liberal Democrat politician Mark Oaten has stated that the press were right to expose details of his private life:

"I concluded that however awful it may be, it's better to have a press which can expose MPs' private lives because it means we have a free press… it means we can expose corruption."[15] Max Mosley has argued for the further advancement of the law[16] whereas the editor of the Daily Mail newspaper Paul Dacre has accused Mr Justice Eady, the judge in the Mosley case, of bringing in a privacy law by the back door.[17]
Key cases European rulings See also Further reading
  • J. Morgan, “Privacy, Confidence and Horizontal Effect: “Hello” Trouble” (2003) 62 (2) Cambridge Law Journal 444
  • H. Fenwick and G. Phillipson, “Confidence and Privacy: A Re-Examination” [1996] Cambridge Law Journal 447.
  • H. Fenwick and G. Phillipson, “Breach of Confidence as a Privacy Remedy in the Human Rights Act Era” (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 660.
  • R. Singh and J. Strachan, “Privacy Postponed” [2003] European Human Rights Law Review Special Issue: Privacy 12-25.
Notes and references
  1. http://www.11sb.com/pdf/privacyaftermaxmosley.pdf
  2. [1]
  3. "Princess Diana, Privacy Laws And Press Freedom In The United Kingdom". Leeds.ac.uk. 1997-10-30. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  4. Home Office v Wainwright [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081, Gordon Kaye v. Andrew Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd
  5. Dyer, Clare (2003-10-17). "Law lords rule there is no right to privacy | UK news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  6. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/publications/institute/docs/privacy_100804.pdf
  7. A v. B plc [2003] Q.B. 195.
  8. Home Office v Wainwright [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081.
  9. Ellis v Chief Constable Essex Police [2003] EWHC 1321.
  10. [2001] EWCA Civ. 2081, at para. 42.
  11. "Cox privacy case 'a watershed'". BBC News. 2003-06-07. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  12. "Privacy law remains confused". BBC News. 2003-06-09. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
  13. See Lord Nicholls [17] - [18] and Lord Hoffman [50] in Campbell v MGN [2004]
  14. "Programmes | Law in Action | Mosley v UK". BBC News. 2009-02-24. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  15. "UK | Is it farewell for Kiss and Tell?". BBC News. 2009-06-15. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  16. "BBC - Panorama - Max Mosley on his right to privacy". BBC News. 2009-06-12. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
  17. "UK | Mail editor accuses Mosley judge". BBC News. 2008-11-10. Retrieved 2009-07-03.
External links
Continue Reading...
Content from Wikipedia Licensed under CC-BY-SA.

Privacy in English law

topic

Privacy in English law

Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers in what situations an individual has a legal right to informational privacy - the protection of personal or private information from misuse or unauthorised disclosure.[1] Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognised no general right or tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.[2 ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy in English law:

English law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

law

(StephiG)

Revolvy User


Privacy law

topic

Privacy law

Privacy law refers to the laws that deal with the regulating, storing, and using of personally identifiable information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organizations, or other individuals. Privacy laws are considered within the context of an individual's privacy rights or within reasonable expectation of privacy. Classification of privacy laws Privacy laws can be broadly classified into: General privacy laws that have an overall bearing on the personal information of individuals and affect the policies that govern many different areas of information. Specific privacy laws that are designed to regulate specific types of information. Some examples include: Communication privacy laws Financial privacy laws Health privacy laws Information privacy laws Online privacy laws Privacy in one's home International legal standards on privacyAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) APEC created a voluntary Privacy Framework that was adopted by all 21 member economies ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy law:

Privacy

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy in Australian law

topic

Privacy in Australian law

Privacy in Australian law is not an absolute right and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their right to privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by the Australian common law and a range of Commonwealth, state and territorial laws, and administrative arrangements.[1] The New Zealand Law Commission said of privacy in Australian law in 2009: "The current landscape in Australia includes federal and state information privacy legislation, some sector-specific privacy legislation at state level, regulation of the media and some criminal sanctions. Regarding civil causes of action for invasion of privacy, however, the current position in Australia is unclear. There have been some indications by the courts that a tort of invasion of privacy may exist in Australia. The Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended the enactment of a statutory cause of action for invasion of privacy."[2]:para 4.87 ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy in Australian law:

Australian law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy

topic

Privacy

Privacy may be lessened by surveillance – in this case through CCTV. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. The boundaries and content of what is considered private differ among cultures and individuals, but share common themes. When something is private to a person, it usually means that something is inherently special or sensitive to them. The domain of privacy partially overlaps security (confidentiality), which can include the concepts of appropriate use, as well as protection of information. Privacy may also take the form of bodily integrity.[1] The right not to be subjected to unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. Almost all countries have laws which in some way limit privacy. An example of this would be law concerning taxation, which normally require the sharing of information ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy:

Human rights

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy laws of the United States

topic

Privacy laws of the United States

Privacy International 2007 privacy ranking green: Protections and safeguards red: Endemic surveillance societies The privacy laws of the United States deal with several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into his or her private affairs, discloses his or her private information, publicizes him or her in a false light, or appropriates his or her name for personal gain.[1] Public figures have less privacy, and this is an evolving area of law as it relates to the media. The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone." It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. These include the ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy laws of the United States:

Privacy law in the United States

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Information privacy

topic

Information privacy

Information privacy, or data privacy (or data protection), is the relationship between the collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal and political issues surrounding them.[1] Privacy concerns exist wherever personally identifiable information or other sensitive information is collected, stored, used, and finally destroyed or deleted – in digital form or otherwise. Improper or non-existent disclosure control can be the root cause for privacy issues. Data privacy issues may arise in response to information from a wide range of sources, such as:[2] Healthcare records Criminal justice investigations and proceedings Financial institutions and transactions Biological traits, such as genetic material Residence and geographic records Privacy breach Location-based service and geolocation Web surfing behavior or user preferences using persistent cookies Academic research The challenge of data privacy is to utilize data while protecting an i ...more...

Member feedback about Information privacy:

Information privacy

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


List of privacy injunction cases in English law

topic

List of privacy injunction cases in English law

This article lists cases in English law where anonymised privacy injunctions have been obtained. As super-injunctions can also be considered a type of anonymised privacy injunction they have also been included below. Anonymised privacy injunctions Case Notes AMM v HXW[1] Also known as Clarkson v Hall after broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson voluntarily lifted the injunction. ASG v GSA[2] Involves a well known person who had an adulterous relationship CBL v Person Unknown[2] Beyond the fact that it exists no information is known about this injunction.[3] CDE & FGH v Mirror Group Newspapers and LMN[4] A misuse of private information claim Christoper Hutcheson (previously known as KGM) v News Group Newspapers[5] Concerned the private life of Christoper Hutcheson. ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd An entertainment actor's affair. Goldsmith v BCD Hacking of Zac Goldsmith's e-mails. Gray v UVW Urgent interim injunction granted restraining the defendant from publishing confidential informat ...more...

Member feedback about List of privacy injunction cases in English law:

English privacy case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Internet privacy

topic

Internet privacy

Internet privacy involves the right or mandate of personal privacy concerning the storing, repurposing, provision to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to oneself via of the Internet.[1][2] Internet privacy is a subset of data privacy. Privacy concerns have been articulated from the beginnings of large scale computer sharing.[3] Privacy can entail either Personally Identifying Information (PII) or non-PII information such as a site visitor's behavior on a website. PII refers to any information that can be used to identify an individual. For example, age and physical address alone could identify who an individual is without explicitly disclosing their name, as these two factors are unique enough to typically identify a specific person. Some experts such as Steve Rambam, a private investigator specializing in Internet privacy cases, believe that privacy no longer exists; saying, "Privacy is dead – get over it".[4] In fact, it has been suggested that the "appeal of online services is to br ...more...

Member feedback about Internet privacy:

Internet privacy

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Breach of confidence in English law

topic

Breach of confidence in English law

Breach of confidence in English law is an equitable doctrine which allows a person to claim a remedy when their confidence has been breached. A duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person in circumstances in which it would be unfair if it were disclosed to others.[1] Breach of confidence gives rise to a civil claim. The Human Rights Act 1998 has developed the law on breach of confidence so that it now applies to private bodies as well as public ones.[1] Statement The "three traditional requirements of the cause of action for breach of confidence"[2]:[19] were identified by Robert Megarry in Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1968) in the following terms:[3] In my judgment, three elements are normally required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to succeed. First, the information itself, in the words of Lord Greene, M.R. in the Saltman case on page 215, must "have the necessary quality of confidence about it." Secondly, that information mu ...more...

Member feedback about Breach of confidence in English law:

English law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Super-injunctions in English law

topic

Super-injunctions in English law

In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all.[1] The term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the Trafigura controversy. Due to their very nature media organisations are not able to report who has obtained a superinjunction without being in contempt of court. The term super-injunction has sometimes been used imprecisely in the media to refer to any anonymised privacy injunction preventing publication of private information. Critics of super-injunctions have argued that they stifle free speech, that they are ineffective as they can be breached using the Internet and social media and that the taking out of an injunction can have the unintended consequence of publicising the information more widely, a phenomenon known as the Streisand effect. Terminology The Neuberger Committee notes that the terminology surrounding privacy injunctions has been used ...more...

Member feedback about Super-injunctions in English law:

Secrecy

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Kaye v Robertson

topic

Kaye v Robertson

Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 is a case in English law, expressing the view that there is no common-law right to privacy in English law.[1] Facts The case involved actor Gorden Kaye, who had suffered serious head injuries when a plank smashed through his car windscreen in the Burns' Day storm of January 1990.[2] While he was recovering from brain surgery, two journalists from the Sunday Sport posed as doctors and took photographs of him in his room at the hospital. Kaye attempted to obtain an order to restrain publication of the photographs.[3] Judgement A friend of Kaye had been granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the editor (Anthony Robertson) and the Sunday Sport from using the material, a decision against which they appealed. Lord Justice Glidewell said, "It is well known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a person's privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament con ...more...

Member feedback about Kaye v Robertson:

1991 in British law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Campbell v MGN Ltd

topic

Campbell v MGN Ltd

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law. Facts British model Naomi Campbell was photographed leaving a rehabilitation clinic, following public denials that she was a recovering drug addict. The photographs were published in The Mirror a publication run by MGN. Campbell sought damages under the English law. Through her lawyers Schillings who engaged Richard Spearman QC a claim for breach of confidence engaging section 6 of the Human Rights Act was brought. This required the court to operate compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The desired result was a ruling that the English tort action for breach of confidence, subject to the ECHR provisions upholding the right to private and family life, would require the court to recognize the private nature of the published information, and hold that there was a breach of her privacy. Rather than challenge the disclosure of the fact she had been a dru ...more...

Member feedback about Campbell v MGN Ltd:

Trinity Mirror

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Anonymised injunctions in English law

topic

Anonymised injunctions in English law

In English law an anonymised injunction is, according to the Neuberger Committee, "an interim injunction which restrains a person from publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private where the names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated".[1] An anonymised injunction is distinct from a "superinjunction" which also prevents publication that the injunction has been obtained. When reported, anonymised injunctions have case names which hide the identity of one or more parties, for example PJS v News Group Newspapers. References Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls (20 May 2011). "Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions: Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice" (PDF). p. iv. ...more...

Member feedback about Anonymised injunctions in English law:

English privacy law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd

topic

Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd

Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479 is a case in English law in which a plaintiff attempted to sue for trespass when aerial photographs were taken of his property. The case established that a property owner does not have unqualified rights over the airspace above their land. Facts On 3 August 1974 the defendants took an aerial photograph of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff alleged that in taking the aerial photo, the defendants had trespassed in the plaintiff's airspace. The defendants admitted taking the photo but claimed that they had taken it whilst flying over an adjoining property. The defendants also argued that if they had flown over the plaintiff's land, then they had the plaintiff's implied permission. Judgment Griffiths J found as a fact that the plane had at some point flown over the plaintiff's land, even if the photograph might have been taken whilst over neighbouring land, and the defendants did not have the plaintiff's implied permission.[1] He further stated: " ...more...

Member feedback about Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd:

English land case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


2011 British privacy injunctions controversy

topic

2011 British privacy injunctions controversy

The British privacy injunctions controversy began in early 2011, when London-based tabloid newspapers published stories about anonymous celebrities that were intended to flout what are commonly (but not formally) known in English law as super-injunctions, where the claimant could not be named, and carefully omitting details that could not legally be published.[1] In April and May 2011, users of non-UK hosted websites, including the social media website Twitter, began posting material connecting various British celebrities with injunctions relating to a variety of potentially scandalous activities. Details of the alleged activities by those who had taken out the gagging orders were also published in the foreign press, as well as in Scotland, where the injunctions had no legal force. In England and Wales, as in many other places, an injunction can be used as a gag order, in which certain details of a legal case, including identities or actions, may not be published. These were originally created to protect peo ...more...

Member feedback about 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy:

Streisand effect

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Injunctions in English law

topic

Injunctions in English law

Injunctions in English law are a legal remedy of three types. Prohibitory injunctions prevent an individual or group from beginning or continuing an action which threatens or breaches the legal rights of another. Mandatory injunctions are rarer and compel a person to carry out a certain act such as make restitution to an injured party. Freezing injunctions relate to funds such as bank accounts and are commonly Mareva Injunctions which are sought mainly in fraud, breach of trust and confiscatory proceedings. Injunctions are most common in cases involving significant matters of nuisance, privacy and libel (reputational damage); they are relatively common remedies in major employment/agency/distribution, trust and property disputes, especially interim, interlocutory injunctions pending settlement or final hearing, whichever is the earlier where there is a clear and present danger that the matter in dispute between the parties will be wholly frustrated (such as irretrievably removed outside of the jurisdiction) i ...more...

Member feedback about Injunctions in English law:

English tort law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy Act 1988

topic

Privacy Act 1988

The Privacy Act 1988 is an Australian law dealing with privacy. Section 14 of the Act stipulates a number of privacy rights known as the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs). These principles apply to Australian Government and Australian Capital Territory agencies or private sector organisations contracted to these governments, as well as to organisations and small businesses who provide a health service.[1] The principles govern when and how personal information can be collected by these government agencies. Information can only be collected if it is relevant to the agencies' functions. Upon this collection, that law mandates that Australians have the right to know why information about them is being acquired and who will see the information. Those in charge of storing the information have obligations to ensure such information is neither lost nor exploited. An Australian will also have the right to access the information unless this is specifically prohibited by law. 2000 amendments The Privacy Act was am ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy Act 1988:

Acts of the Parliament of Australia

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Absolute privilege in English law

topic

Absolute privilege in English law

Absolute privilege is a complete defence to an action for defamation in English law. If the defence of absolute privilege applies it is irrelevant that a defendant has acted with malice, knew information was false or acted solely to damage the reputation of the plaintiff.[1] Absolute privilege can be deployed in a narrow range of cases. Statements made in judicial proceedings are protected as are communications between a solicitor and their client. The Bill of Rights of 1689 provides that proceedings of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are also covered by absolute privilege. Reports of court proceedings Sections 14(1) to (3) of the Defamation Act 1996 read: (1) A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public before a court to which this section applies, if published contemporaneously with the proceedings, is absolutely privileged. (2) A report of proceedings which by an order of the court, or as a consequence of any statutory provision, is required to be postponed shall be treated as published co ...more...

Member feedback about Absolute privilege in English law:

English law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy concerns with social networking services

topic

Privacy concerns with social networking services

Since the arrival of early social networking sites in the early 2000s, online social networking platforms have expanded exponentially, with the biggest names in social media in the mid-2010s being Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat. The massive influx of personal information that has become available online and stored in the cloud has put user privacy at the forefront of discussion regarding the database’s ability to safely store such personal information. The extent to which users and social media platform administrators can access user profiles has become a new topic of ethical consideration, and the legality, awareness, and boundaries of subsequent privacy violations are critical concerns in the advance of the technological age. A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors (such as individuals or organizations), sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. Privacy concerns with social networking services is a subset of data privacy, involving the ri ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy concerns with social networking services:

Social networking services

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

Custome Broker

(RolandM.Tucker)

Revolvy User


Misuse of private information

topic

Misuse of private information

Misuse of private information is a new common law tort that English courts recognised in Campbell v MGN Ltd.[1] Arising as a branch of the law relating to breach of confidence, it has been reinforced by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, supplemented by s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which obliges public institutions (including the courts) not to act inconsistently with Convention rights. Scope Campbell was the watershed moment where the tort of "misuse of private information" became distinguished in scope from that relating to breach of confidence, as the former does not require "an initial confidential relationship."[2] In addition, actions for misuse of private information can readily attract tortious damages, while those for breach of confidence may receive damages only as an equitable remedy within the discretion of the presiding judge.[3] While it will be obvious what may constitute public (as opposed to private) information in most cases, there will be times where it will need ...more...

Member feedback about Misuse of private information:

Privacy law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Photography and the law

topic

Photography and the law

A "No Photography" sign, commonly placed in properties where taking photographs is illegal or objected to by the owner (though in some jurisdictions, this is not a legal requirement) The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography of certain subject matter can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children. Reactions to photography differ between societies, and even where there are no official restrictions there may be objections to photographing people or places. Reactions may range from complaints to violence for photography which is not illegal. United KingdomLegal restrictions on photography Mass photo gathering in UK. Mass photo gathering in UK. In the United Kingdom there are no laws forbidding photog ...more...

Member feedback about Photography and the law:

Copyright law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Data Protection Directive

topic

Data Protection Directive

The Data Protection Directive (officially Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data (PII (US)) and on the free movement of such data) was a European Union directive adopted in 1995 which regulates the processing of personal data within the European Union. It is an important component of EU privacy and human rights law. The General Data Protection Regulation, adopted in April 2016, has superseded the Data Protection Directive and became enforceable starting on 25 May 2018.[1] Context The right to privacy is a highly developed area of law in Europe. All the member states of the European Union (EU) are also signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 of the ECHR provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions. The European Court of Human Rights has given this article a very broad interpretation in its jurisprudence. In 1980, in an effort to cre ...more...

Member feedback about Data Protection Directive:

Information privacy

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Prince Albert v Strange

topic

Prince Albert v Strange

Etching of Albert. Prince Albert v Strange was a court decision made by the High Court of Chancery in 1849, and began the development of confidence law in England.[1] The court awarded Prince Albert an injunction, restraining Strange from publishing a catalogue describing Prince Albert’s etchings. Lord Cottenham LC (Charles Pepys, 1st Earl of Cottenham) noted that "this case by no means depends solely upon the question of property, for a breach of trust, confidence, or contract, would [sic] of itself entitle the plaintiff to an injunction". Summary Both Queen Victoria and Prince Albert sketched as a hobby. Sometimes they showed them to friends or gave them away. Strange obtained some of these sketches from a person named Brown[2] and scheduled a public viewing of these. He also published a catalog listing these sketches. Prince Albert filed suit for the return of the sketches and a surrender of the catalog for destruction. His plea was granted.[3] See also Privacy in English law References Bently, ...more...

Member feedback about Prince Albert v Strange:

Albert, Prince Consort

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002

topic

Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002

Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC on Privacy and Electronic Communications, otherwise known as ePrivacy Directive (ePD), is an EU directive on data protection and privacy in the digital age. It presents a continuation of earlier efforts, most directly the Data Protection Directive. It deals with the regulation of a number of important issues such as confidentiality of information, treatment of traffic data, spam and cookies. This Directive has been amended by Directive 2009/136, which introduces several changes, especially in what concerns cookies, that are now subject to prior consent. The ePrivacy Regulation (ePR) is estimated to come in effect somewhere in 2019 and will repeal the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC and accompany the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and regulate the requirements for consent to the use of cookies and opt-out options.[1][2][3] Subject-matter and Scope The Electronic Privacy Directive has been drafted specifically to address the requirements of n ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002:

2002 in law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd

topic

RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd

RJW v Guardian News and Media Limited ([2009] EWHC 2540 (QB)) also known as Trafigura v Guardian News and Media Limited and better known as the Trafigura case was a 2009 legal action in which Trafigura attempted to use a super-injunction to prevent the press reporting details of toxic waste dumping in the Ivory Coast.[1] This super-injunction was overturned after Paul Farrelly MP brought up the topic during Parliamentary Questions. References "How the Trafigura story came to be told". The Guardian. 16 October 2009. External links High Court judgment ...more...

Member feedback about RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd:

The Guardian

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Douglas v Hello! Ltd

topic

Douglas v Hello! Ltd

Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts.[1] The case resulted in OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Facts Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding which took place in 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! magazine. In order to ensure the exclusivity there was strict security of the event and no guests were allowed to take photographs, the event was closed to the media and guests were told to surrender any equipment which could be used to take photographs.[2] However a freelance photographer Rupert Thorpe, son of the former British politician Jeremy Thorpe, managed to get into the wedding and take photographs of the couple. This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which h ...more...

Member feedback about Douglas v Hello! Ltd:

2007 in the United Kingdom

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd

topic

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)[1] was an English High Court case in which the former President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, Max Mosley, challenged the News of the World. The newspaper had exposed his involvement in what it called a sadomasochistic sex act involving several female prostitutes when they published a video of the incident recorded by one of the women and published details of the incident in their newspaper, wrongly describing it as “Nazi-themed”.[2] The case resulted in Mosley being awarded £60,000 (approx. US$92,000) in damages.[3] Background The claimant, Max Mosley, had been President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile since 1993 as well as being a trustee of its charitable arm the FIA Foundation.[1] He brought legal action against News Group Newspapers Ltd, the publishers of the News of the World newspaper, complaining about an article by journalist Neville Thurlbeck published on 30 March 2008. The headline of the article was "F1 Boss ...more...

Member feedback about Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd:

BDSM

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor

topic

Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor

Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor[1] is a leading case of the High Court of Australia on determining whether property rights exist, and protecting claims in property for the purposes of tort law. It is also notable in its rejection of the concepts of quasi-property and privacy in the framework of the common law. It has been observed that the concept of property itself cannot be entirely satisfactorily explained without accounting, in some way or other, for the ruling in Victoria Park Racing.[2] It arose from the manner in which radio broadcasting in Australia in the 1930s challenged the monopolies of racing clubs who exercised tight control over access to the racecourse, supported by existing laws, with minimal media reporting in the form of scores scratched on boards at the racecourse and more detailed newspaper summaries after the event.[3]:1022 Background The plaintiff owned Victoria Park, a racing track which charged admissions to people who placed bets on the races. The rac ...more...

Member feedback about Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor:

Australian property law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


A v B plc

topic

A v B plc

A v. B plc is a 2003 case in English law in which a Premiership footballer sought an injunction to prevent a Sunday newspaper from publishing details of his extra-marital affair. The Court of Appeal granted a temporary injunction against publication. The case established that it is not for the press to show a public interest in publication but for the applicant to show why a free press should be overborne.[1] Lord Woolf remarked in the case "Where an individual is a public figure he is entitled to have his privacy respected. A public figure is entitled to a private life" but a celebrity "should recognise that because of his public position he must expect and accept that his actions will be more closely scrutinised by the media."[2] See also Privacy in English law References Davis, Howard , Human rights and civil liberties, p200 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/global_law/publications/institute/docs/privacy_100804.pdf ...more...

Member feedback about A v B plc:

Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


List of known legal cases involving super-injunctions

topic

List of known legal cases involving super-injunctions

This article lists all known cases involving super-injunctions a type of anonymised privacy injunction that prevents both (a) the publication of why an injunction has been obtained and (b) the publication that an injunction has been obtained. Due to their nature this list can only include known super-injunctions that have either been disclosed voluntarily, breached in contempt of court, discontinued or revealed using parliamentary privilege. Super-injunctions should not be confused with anonymised privacy injunctions that do not prevent publication of the fact that an injunction has been obtained. List of known super-injunction cases Case Method of Revelation RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, had tabled a parliamentary question revealing the existence of the injunction. Ntuli v Donald A super-injunction was granted but set aside on appeal. DFT v TFD A super-injunction was granted but later discontinued. Terry v Persons Unknown Application for a super-inju ...more...

Member feedback about List of known legal cases involving super-injunctions:

English privacy law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia

topic

Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia

Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia are a rapidly developing branch in Russian legislation that have mostly been enacted in the 2005 and 2006.[1] The Russian Federal Law on Personal Data (No. 152-FZ), implemented on July 27, 2006, constitutes the backbone of Russian privacy laws and requires data operators to take "all the necessary organizational and technical measures required for protecting personal data against unlawful or accidental access".[2] Russia's Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media is the government agency tasked with overseeing compliance.[3] Applicable laws 1.1 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, signed and ratified by the Russian Federation on December 19, 2005;[4] 1.2 the Law of the Russian Federation “On Personal Data” as of 27.07.2006 No. 152-FZ, regulating the processing of personal data by means of automation equipment. It is the operator who is required to comply with ...more...

Member feedback about Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia:

Russian law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Ferdinand v MGN Ltd

topic

Ferdinand v MGN Ltd

Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers is a 2011 High Court case in which the English footballer Rio Ferdinand was unsuccessful in preventing the publication of a tabloid newspaper story revealing details of an alleged sexual relationship.[2] Background On 25 April 2010, the Sunday Mirror ran an article entitled "My Affair with England Captain Rio", in which interior designer Carly Storey gave an account of an alleged relationship with Rio Ferdinand.[1] Ferdinand described the article as "gross invasion of my privacy" and brought legal action in which he sought damages and a worldwide injunction against further publication. Ferdinand said that he had not met Ms. Storey for six years at the time of publication of the Sunday Mirror article, and had exchanged text messages with her between that time and his appointment as captain of the England national football team in February 2010. He claimed that there had been a misuse of private information. Ms. Storey received a payment of £16,000 for her interview with the ...more...

Member feedback about Ferdinand v MGN Ltd:

2011 in law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


English defamation law

topic

English defamation law

Modern libel and slander laws, as implemented in many (but not all) Commonwealth nations as well as in the United States and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in place. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I (1603-1625). Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of dueling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation. English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual(s) (under English law companies are legal persons, and may bri ...more...

Member feedback about English defamation law:

English defamation law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User

law

(StephiG)

Revolvy User


McKennitt v Ash

topic

McKennitt v Ash

McKennitt v Ash is an English legal case in which Loreena McKennitt, a Canadian world music singer, sued in England to prevent publication of extracts of a book written by a former friend on the grounds of privacy. McKennitt won the case.[1] In 2005, McKennitt was involved in an acrimonious court case in the United Kingdom when her former friend and employee, Niema Ash, intended to publish a book, Travels with Loreena McKennitt: My Life as a Friend, which contained intimate details of their friendship. McKennitt argued that much of the book contained confidential personal information, which Ash had no right to publish. The English courts found that there had indeed been a breach of confidence and a misuse of McKennitt's private information, and the case is likely to set important precedents in English law on the privacy of celebrities.[2] The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in 2006, and that affirmation was reaffirmed when the House of Lords declined to hear what would have been a final a ...more...

Member feedback about McKennitt v Ash:

2005 in British law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Von Hannover v Germany

topic

Von Hannover v Germany

Not to be confused with the connected case von Hannover v. Germany No. 2 (application no. 40660/08), adjudicated in February, 2012[1] Von Hannover v Germany [2004] [2] (Application no. 59320/00) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004. The Court ruled that German law breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Facts Caroline, Princess of Hanover, the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco had for some time attempted to prevent pictures being published of her in the German press. In 1999 the German courts granted an injunction to prevent publication of photos involving her children stating that their need for protection was greater than that of adults. However the German Constitutional Court ruled that there was no breach of privacy as Caroline, Princess of Hanover was a public figure, specifically a "figure of contemporary society par excellence". Judgment On 24 June 2004, the Court unanimously ruled that there was a breach of Article 8 of the European C ...more...

Member feedback about Von Hannover v Germany:

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human R...

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


POI v Lina

topic

POI v Lina

POI v The Person Known as “Lina”'[1] ([2011] EWHC 12 (QB)) was a 2011 privacy case in which an injunction was granted restraining the publication of photographs. The case also involved blackmail and because of this the claimant was granted anonymity.[2] See also DFT v TFD References "Lina". "Caselaw". External links Bailii ...more...

Member feedback about POI v Lina:

2011 in the United Kingdom

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal

topic

Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal

The Organic law 15/1999 of December 13 about protection of Personal Data, (LOPD), is an organic law Spanish that guarantees and protects the processing of personal data, public liberties and fundamental human rights, and especially of their personal and family honor and privacy. It was approved by the General Court on December 13, 1999. This law is developed based on Article 18 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978, on familiar and personalright to privacy and the secrecy of communications. Its main objective is to regulate the treatment of data and files, of a personal nature, regardless of the support in which they are treated, the rights of citizens over them and the obligations of those who create or treat them. This law affects all data that refers to registered humans on any support, computer or otherwise. Excluded from this regulation are those data collected for domestic use, classified materials of the state and those files that collect data on Terrorism and other forms of organized crime (not simple ...more...

Member feedback about Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal:

Spanish law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd

topic

Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 971 is an English legal case in which Maxine Carr was awarded a lifelong injunction preventing publication of her new identity.[1] Carr provided a false alibi to Ian Huntley who was convicted of the Soham murders. References Foster, S. (2008), Human Rights and Civil Liberties, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 204 ...more...

Member feedback about Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd:

English privacy case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Hyper-injunctions in English law

topic

Hyper-injunctions in English law

Hyper-injunctions in English law refer to a form of superinjunction that prevents discussion of a topic covered by a superinjunction with Members of Parliament, lawyers or journalists except for the persons own defence lawyers. The term was coined by the Liberal Democrat John Hemming MP. See also Super-injunctions in English law Injunctions in English law References https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-hyper-injunction https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110317/halltext/110317h0001.htm Hyper-injunctions in English law refer to a form of superinjunction that prevents discussion of a topic covered by a superinjunction with Members of Parliament, lawyers or journalists except for the persons own defence lawyers. The term was coined by the Liberal Democrat John Hemming MP. See also Super-injunctions in English law Injunctions in English law References https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-hyper-injunction https://publications ...more...

Member feedback about Hyper-injunctions in English law:

English privacy law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Wainwright v Home Office

topic

Wainwright v Home Office

Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406 is an English tort law case concerning the arguments for a tort of privacy, and the action for battery. Facts Alan Wainwright, with his mother, went to visit his stepbrother who was detained in Leeds prison awaiting trial. Because the stepbrother was suspected of taking drugs in jail, the two visitors were asked to consent to a strip search, under Rule 86(1) of the Prison Rules 1964 (consolidated 1998), which grants prison authorities a power to search any person entering a prison. They reluctantly consented and were searched by prison officers, which they found upsetting. In particular, Alan Wainwright was handled in a way that Home Office counsel subsequently conceded was battery. The Wainwrights subsequently consulted a solicitor, who arranged for them to be examined by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist concluded that Alan (who had physical and learning difficulties) had been so severely affected by his experience as to suffer post-traumatic stress ...more...

Member feedback about Wainwright v Home Office:

House of Lords cases

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


PJS v News Group Newspapers

topic

PJS v News Group Newspapers

PJS v News Group Newspapers ([2016] EWCA Civ 100) is an English legal case in which an anonymised privacy injunction[n 1] was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", in order to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people.[1] In January 2016, PJS applied to the High Court of Justice in London for an injunction to prevent publication of a news story relating to the encounter by The Sun on Sunday. This was declined on the basis that publication would be in the public interest. PJS applied to the Court of Appeal and was successful in overturning the High Court decision. In April 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that the injunction should be lifted, as the allegations had been published widely both abroad and online. PJS then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which in May 2016 decided to uphold the injunction by a majority of 4-1. The case has led to debate about the effectiveness of injunctions in the age of the Internet a ...more...

Member feedback about PJS v News Group Newspapers:

United Kingdom free speech case law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


A-G v Observer Ltd

topic

A-G v Observer Ltd

Attorney General v Observer Ltd [1990] [1] is an important English tort law case on breach of confidentiality. It also raised questions of the interests of public policy and freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights because it involved a spy's publication of secret information. Facts Peter Wright worked for MI5. After retiring he wrote a book called Spycatcher, describing his work. This was in breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911. It was published in Australia and the US. The Observer and The Guardian published articles on proceedings in the Australian courts by the UK government to stop the publication. The Attorney General then sought and received an interlocutory injunction restraining publication of information obtained by Wright in June 1986. In July 1987 the Sunday Times published extracts from the book two days before its publication in the US. The Attorney General sought and was given injunctions to restrain further publication. But Scott J discharged them, holding the pa ...more...

Member feedback about A-G v Observer Ltd:

The Guardian

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Privacy International

topic

Privacy International

Privacy International (PI) is a UK-based registered charity[2] that defends and promotes the right to privacy across the world. First formed in 1990, registered as a non-profit company in 2002 and as a charity in 2012, PI is based in London, UK. Its current executive director, since 2012, is Dr Gus Hosein. Formation, background and objectives During 1990, in response to increasing awareness about the globalisation of surveillance, more than a hundred privacy experts and human rights organizations from forty countries took steps to form an international organization for the protection of privacy.[3] Members of the new body, including computer professionals, academics, lawyers, journalists, jurists and activists, had a common interest in promoting an international understanding of the importance of privacy and data protection.[4] Meetings of the group, which took the name Privacy International (PI), were held throughout that year in North America, Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific, and members agreed to wor ...more...

Member feedback about Privacy International:

Organizations started in 1990

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Daniel J. Solove

topic

Daniel J. Solove

Daniel J. Solove (;[1] born 1972) is a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School.[2] He is well known for his academic work on privacy and for popular books on how privacy relates with information technology.[2] Solove wrote three books about privacy that had been published from 2004 to 2008.[3] Among other works, he authored The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet, and The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy In the Information Age (ISBN 0-814-79846-2). Solove has been quoted by the media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and NPR.[4] In 2011 Tony Doyle wrote in The Journal of Value Inquiry that Solove "has established himself as one of the leading privacy theorists writing in English today."[3] Selected publications Books: Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security (2011) Understanding Privacy (2008) The Future of R ...more...

Member feedback about Daniel J. Solove:

Yale Law School alumni

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd

topic

CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd

CTB v News Group Newspapers is an English legal case between Manchester United player Ryan Giggs,[2] given the pseudonym CTB, and defendants News Group Newspapers Limited and model Imogen Thomas. On 14 April 2011, Mr Justice Eady granted first a temporary injunction at the High Court in London, preventing the naming of the footballer in the media, then extending it on 21 April 2011. The injunction was initially intended to prevent details of the case – an alleged extra-marital relationship between Giggs and Thomas – from being published in The Sun.[1][3] The ruling of the court was based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "Right to respect for private and family life." Following the publication of details of the gagging order on Twitter, naming Giggs as the footballer involved, there was widespread discussion in the UK and international media on the issue of how court injunctions can be enforced in the age of social media websites.[4][5] On 23 May 2011, Justice Ea ...more...

Member feedback about CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd:

High Court of Justice cases

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England

topic

Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England

Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461 was a landmark legal case in the United Kingdom. The lead decision was given by Bankes LJ. It established the conditions under which banks owed confidentiality to their clients, allowing four circumstances wherein banks were not required to guard privacy: where compelled by (1) law, (2) public duty, (3) the interest of the bank, or (4) where the client had consented, even implicitly, to disclosure.[1] In this case the bank disclosed to its customer's employer the fact that one of the customer's unpaid cheques was drawn in favour of a bookmaker's account. As a result, the customer's employer did not renew his contract with the customer. The Court of Appeal held that confidentiality was an implied term in the customer's contract and that any breach could give rise to liability in damages if loss results. References Gallant, Mary Michelle (2005). Money Laundering and the Proceeds of Crime: Economic Crime and Civil Remedies. Edward El ...more...

Member feedback about Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England:

Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Neuberger Committee

topic

Neuberger Committee

The Neuberger Committee was a committee set up to examine the law and practice surrounding super-injunctions in English law. It reported in May 2011.[1] References "Report of the Neuberger Committee: thorough, thoughtful but not the last word". Inforrm.wordpress.com. 2011-05-22. Retrieved 2013-08-11. ...more...

Member feedback about Neuberger Committee:

Legal history of England

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Meyer v. Nebraska

topic

Meyer v. Nebraska

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Meyer v. Nebraska Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923),[1] was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a 1919 Nebraska law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Context and legislation World War I witnessed an extensive campaign against all things German, such as the performance of German music at symphony concerts and the meetings of German-American civic associations. Language was a principal focus of legislation at the state and local level. It took many forms, from requiring associations to have charters written in English to a ban on the use of German within the town limits. Some states banned foreign language instruction, while a few banned only German. Some extended their bans into private instruction and even to religious education. A bill to create a Department of Education at the federal level was introduced in October 1918, designed to restrict federal funds to states that enfor ...more...

Member feedback about Meyer v. Nebraska:

German-American history

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


Human Rights Act 1998

topic

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice. It also requires the judiciary (including tribunals) to take account of any decisions, judgment or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.[2] However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are n ...more...

Member feedback about Human Rights Act 1998:

United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1998

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User


AMP v Persons Unknown

topic

AMP v Persons Unknown

AMP v. Persons Unknown is a case from the Technology and Construction Court in London. The decision in the case was published on 10 January 2012, and involved a woman who had experienced blackmail and harassment after sexually explicit pictures of her taken on a mobile phone camera were uploaded to BitTorrent file-sharing websites. Background While she was at university in June 2008, the woman, who was referred to in the court documents as AMP, discovered that her mobile phone had been lost or stolen. Previously, around August 2007, the camera on the phone had been used to take photographs "of an explicit sexual nature which were taken for the personal use of her boyfriend at the time." Shortly afterwards, she was contacted on Facebook by a person identifying himself as "Nils Henrik-Derimot", who threatened to expose her identity, post the images widely online and tell her friends about the images if she did not add him as a friend on Facebook. The woman deleted the messages and blocked the sender. Additiona ...more...

Member feedback about AMP v Persons Unknown:

2011 in law

Revolvy Brain (revolvybrain)

Revolvy User



Next Page
Javascript Version
Revolvy Server https://www.revolvy.com
Revolvy Site Map