No Harm Threshold meaning

In this issue: Children's social care Public procurement Social housing Governance Social care Local government finance Education Healthcare Planning Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q&A Children's social care Supreme Court dismisses appeal upholding care order procedures (The Father v Worcestershire CC) In The Father v Worcestershire County Council [2025] UKSC 1, the Supreme Court rejected the father’s challenge to the care order that placed his children with foster carers. He had applied for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting the order was made without jurisdiction and that the children were unlawfully deprived of their liberty. The Court of Appeal had already refused his bid, indicating that any objection to a care order must be pursued using the mechanisms in the Children Act 1989 and the Family Procedure Rules, not via habeas corpus. The Supreme Court endorsed that approach, noting the children were not detained but living...

Farley and others v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) (Information Commissioner intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 What are the practical implications of this case? The court’s confirmation that unlawful processing, by itself, can found a duty to compensate for ensuing damage emphasises the need for controllers to maintain rigorous UK data protection compliance that is well-documented and to record those measures, including clear documentation of steps taken and decisions taken. It also serves as a useful prompt that ‘processing’ spans collection, storage and organisation of personal data, and that even small departures from handling protocols may attract liability. Organisations should reassess incident response frameworks so that appropriate standards for logging, inquiry and remediation also apply to low-level events (for example, misdirected emails), and keep contemporaneous records of investigations and outcomes. Documenting investigation and remediation for seemingly minor mishaps can therefore be critical. The lack of any minimum threshold for non-material harm may encourage more individuals to seek compensation under Article 82 UK GDPR based on anxiety about...

Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Judges at the EU Court of Justice have stated that, under Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation, proof of harm is required before compensation can be awarded against the responsible data controller. They explained that anyone seeking damages must demonstrate not only that the Regulation was breached, but that this infringement caused material or moral harm. The reference arose from proceedings before the district court in Hagen, Germany, which asked a series of questions about entitlement to compensation for non-material damage—such as pain, upset or stress. The referring court’s queries centre on whether a claimant must evidence such non-material harm in addition to proving that a data breach occurred. It also sought clarification on whether the disclosure of a paper document to an unauthorised individual is sufficient, on its own, to constitute a GDPR infringement. Overall, the EU court confirmed the need for causation between breach and damage, not just proof of non-compliance...

Practice Note This Practice Note assists with identifying the applicable law in the courts of England and Wales for events causing damage that occurred on or after 1 January 2021, and is intended for matters arising in respect of such incidents. Please note that, where a conflict of laws arises between different jurisdictions within the UK, or between the UK and Gibraltar, Assimilated Rome II (UK Rome II) is used if the harmful event took place on or after 11 January 2009. For events falling outside these periods, the UK courts will apply an alternative applicable law regime, determined by the date when the event happened. For an overview of the various regimes and how they relate to one another, see Practice Note: Applicable law regimes. This Practice Note reviews the provisions of UK Rome II, Regulation (EC) 864/2007 concerning the law governing non‑contractual obligations, Rome II, as relevant to this Note. It addresses the general rule in Article 4(1) of UK Rome II, Regulation (EC) 864/2007, and...

This Practice Note This Practice Note explains how the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) applies within public children proceedings. It sets out the court’s discretion and the influence of the welfare principle alongside the welfare checklist. It also gives practical guidance on the paramountcy principle, the need to avoid delay, concurrent and twin-track planning, and early permanence (previously termed ‘fostering to adopt’). ChA 1989 establishes a two-stage process, which may occur in the same hearing or over multiple hearings, before the court may exercise its discretion to make a care or supervision order: first, the court must consider the threshold criteria in ChA 1989, s 31(2) second, the court considers the welfare principle This Practice Note focuses on the second, welfare, stage. The local authority must establish the threshold criteria before the court can reach the welfare stage—see Practice Notes: Threshold criteria and Principle of significant harm. On 22 April 2014, the Public Law Outline (PLO) for...

Relationship between causes of action for reputational damage claims which may provide alternatives to a defamation claim This Practice Note explores how other causes of action connected to reputational harm may operate as alternatives to a defamation claim. It examines malicious falsehood, misuse of private information, breach of confidence, contraventions of data protection legislation, harassment and negligent misstatement. Defamation remains the core route for safeguarding reputation. In essence, such a claim arises where material is communicated to third parties that diminishes the claimant in the eyes of reasonable members of the public, carrying an allegation capable of causing serious harm to their reputation, and where no defence in law applies. For further detail, see Practice Note: Defamation. In certain situations, it can be appropriate—and sometimes necessary—to pursue a different cause of action, potentially against a person other than the original publisher. Care is required to avoid re-labelling what is truly a defamation claim, since that may expose the claimant to strike-out risk. It is nonetheless helpful to understand: ...