Privacy injunctions meaning

Checklist for privacy claims This Checklist for privacy claims pinpoints the principal matters to weigh up when advising a prospective claimant contemplating a misuse of private information claim (privacy claim). It centres on the merits: what the claimant must show to found the cause of action; any defences; limitation and jurisdictional questions; injunctions to stop publication; preservation of documents; regulatory complaint; pre-action conduct; funding and issue of proceedings; and settlement, including Part 36 offers. Read this Checklist alongside Practice Note: Starting a claim for misuse of private information—a practical guide. To anticipate how an opponent might respond to a threatened privacy claim, see also Practice Note: Responding to a claim for misuse of private information—a practical guide. Action Comments Is there a viable privacy claim? The underlying legal right for this cause of action derives from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). The ECHR is contained in HRA 1998, Schedule...

Stoute and another v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 523 What are the practical implications of this case? Applications for interim injunctions in claims like misuse of private information are a familiar feature of the media and communications list. This decision sets out the statutory framework and the leading European and domestic authorities on privacy, addressing the balancing act between rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights when determining whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, with a particular emphasis on situations where photographs are taken in public following paparazzi targeting. It also explores the different thresholds for obtaining interim relief before and after publication, indicating that pre-publication orders are more readily achieved, as earlier publications may properly be treated as a relevant, albeit not conclusive, factor when evaluating the likelihood that further publication would inflict additional, irreparable harm. What was the background? The claimants were Mr and Mrs Stoute, a couple who jointly run a company supplying...

A Corporation v Firm B and another [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling makes clear that confidentiality obligations reach across the arbitral hearing and process, capturing not only any transcript or note, but also documents disclosed by one party to others, as well as material created or prepared for, and then used or produced in, the arbitration, together with the award itself. Accordingly, lawyers and their clients must adopt robust confidentiality procedures to avoid any unauthorised release of such material, thereby preserving the privacy and integrity of the arbitral process. The decision also exposes the practical strains for international law firms with offices in multiple jurisdictions. Here, the court recorded that certain lawyers in the First defendant’s London office who had worked on the First Arbitration agreed to step aside from the Second Arbitration. The defendants also accepted a change of personnel, undertook a thorough review of the case file with the aim of deleting any infringing information, and...

In this issue: New technologies Internet Media Data protection Reputation management Telecommunications Advertising, marketing and sponsorship LexTalk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies DSIT publishes AI Regulation White Paper consultation response The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has released the government’s reply to the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation White Paper consultation, setting out plans for a balanced, pro-innovation regime for AI oversight as outlined in the White Paper. DSIT indicates that government is enabling more agile AI regulation and will equip regulators with the expertise and tools to manage AI’s risks and opportunities. It has also confirmed investment in AI safety and advancement, with over £100m committed to unlock new AI advances and strengthen regulators’ technical capability. Government further recognises that targeted, binding obligations may in future be appropriate for developers of highly...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

Read this Practice Note alongside Practice Notes: Privacy law—misuse of private information and Privacy law—remedies. Brexit This Practice Note makes multiple references to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is given effect in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). Brexit has not, by itself, altered HRA 1998 or the ECHR’s incorporation through that Act. The ECHR is an international treaty that protects human rights across the member states of the Council of Europe, a body wholly distinct from the EU. The UK remains within the Council of Europe. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement confirms that the arrangement leaves the UK’s ECHR obligations unchanged and allows the agreement to be brought to an end if either party denounces the ECHR. For further information, see: Q&A: What does Brexit mean for the Human Rights Act 1998? LNB News 07/01/2021 77: Comment—EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement provisions on human rights See also Practice Note: What does...

Court of Appeal—professional negligence ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal in a claim against solicitors, holding that the loss of a chance head of damage was too remote. At first instance, the judge concluded that Lewis Silkin LLP had fallen below the required standard by not advising their client to include a jurisdiction provision in his employment agreement with a franchisee involved in the Indian Premier League’s Twenty20 competition. Because no jurisdiction clause appeared in the contract, when the client later issued proceedings against the franchisee over a severance entitlement, he faced jurisdictional challenges (ultimately dismissed) brought by the franchisee, which postponed his obtaining judgment for £10 million in severance. The client’s case was that, with proper advice on jurisdiction, the contract would have contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On that footing, he said, he would have secured judgment for the severance sum sooner (as there would have been no hold‑ups arising from jurisdiction objections) and...