‘The High Court has imposed indemnity costs on a family that claimed damages for distress after a law firm accidentally sent an email about outstanding school fees to the wrong person.’
Legal Futures, 21st October 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal this week handed down its decision in Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1110, the latest judgment to consider the difficult tension that exists between the generally confidential nature of sports arbitration and the desirability of transparency where matters of public interest arise.’
Littleton Chambers, 22nd July 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘In Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 626, the Court of Appeal considered the test for ordering the cross-examination of an individual, prior to trial, on the content of his sworn affidavit which had been provided pursuant to a Norwich Pharmacal order.’
The 36 Group, 15th June 2021
Source: 36group.co.uk
‘Confidentiality is a fundamental concept at the heart of the modern taxation system. The need to strike a balance between the taxpayer’s right to privacy and the requirement of HMRC to carry out its functions has been the subject of much legislation and litigation. There has been an explosion in the exchange of information between revenue authorities of different countries and British politicians have for years been under pressure to emulate the tradition of American presidents publishing their tax returns. But there is nothing new under the sun: the introduction of income tax in Britain at the end of the 18th century was dominated by concerns over taxpayer confidentiality, which led to measures being developed which have left their mark on today’s income tax system.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 6th April 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘Confidentiality is a fundamental concept at the heart of the modern taxation system. The need to strike a balance between the taxpayer’s right to privacy and the requirement of HMRC to carry out its functions has been the subject of much legislation and litigation.[1] There has been an explosion in the exchange of information between revenue authorities of different countries and British politicians have for years been under pressure to emulate the tradition of American presidents publishing their tax returns. But there is nothing new under the sun: the introduction of income tax in Britain at the end of the 18th century was dominated by concerns over taxpayer confidentiality, which led to measures being developed which have left their mark on today’s income tax system.’
Wilberforce Chambers, 6th April 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has recently affirmed the proposition that a person can be liable under the misuse of private information tort for revealing that someone is the subject of a police investigation before they have been charged. This raises important questions about the relationship between the citizen and the state when the former has the latter under investigation. But so far that relationship has not been central to the courts’ decision-making on this issue. Rather, the basis for liability has been a broad-brush conclusion that a person will generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact that they “have simply come under suspicion” of the police or other state authority. This blog post will suggest there is a better way to resolve these tricky cases.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th February 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The London Borough of Lambeth has won a final injunction against a man who was able to remove a redaction on papers concerning child welfare.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th February 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In this post, Neil Newing and Olivia Flasch who both practice at Signature Litigation, comment upon the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (Formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) [2020] UKSC 48. They ask: is the decision a missed opportunity?’
UKSC Blog, 2nd February 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Racing Partnership Ltd & others v. Sports Information Services Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1300 has provided clarity on the economic tort of unlawful means conspiracy and provided much food for thought on claims for breach of confidence.’
Littleton Chambers, 1st December 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘Practitioners acting in the more challenging cases of conspiracies involving the misuse of confidential information or otherwise interested in the history and development of tort (outside the tort of negligence) will find this case compelling and essential reading.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th October 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘A woman has been sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment of 12 months after a High Court judge found she had forged a purported court order and sent it to an NHS trust with the intention of obtaining the medical confidential records of a relative, despite the court refusing to direct this.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A case that shows how the committal procedure works is Centek Holdings Ltd. and others v Giles EWHC 1682 (Ch) (26 June 2020). For over 17 years Mr Trustram Files has been the claimant companies’ product development manager. In August 2019 Mr Giles left the claimants to take up a job in Malaysia. He took with him what was described as “very substantial amounts of confidential and proprietary material” belonging to his employer. His bosses suspected what he was doing and contained an order (“the Order”) from Mr Jystice Norris “not to use, access or distribute Centek Material (paragraph 2 of the Order), abide by specific restrictive covenants (paragraph 3 of the Order), disclose and preserve Centek Material and the “Devices” and “Accounts” on which it was kept (paragraphs 4 and 5(a)-(b) of the Order), preserve disclosable documents (paragraph 5(f) of the Order) and facilitate the imaging of such Devices and Accounts by “Independent Experts” (paragraph 6 of the Order).”‘
NIPC Law, 7th July 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘The quality of legal help for suspects in police custody has “suffered significantly” due to Covid-19 amid concerns over confidentiality and restrictions on lawyers talking to clients, a new report has found.’
Legal Futures, 30th June 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘PHG, linked with Cambridge University, provides independent advice and evaluations of biomedical and digital innovations in healthcare. PHG has recently published a series of reports exploring the interpretability of machine learning in this context. The one I will focus on in this post is the report considering the requirements of the GDPR for machine learning in healthcare and medical research by way of transparency, interpretability, or explanation. Links to the other reports are given at the end of this post.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In the recent case of Trailfinders v Travel Counsellors & Ors [2020] EWHC 591 (IPEC) the court reiterated that the test was not subjective: the recipient of the client list did not have to know the information was confidential. It was objective: in equity the recipient is under a duty of confidence whenever he ought to know that the information received is fairly and reasonably to be regarded as confidential, irrespective of his actual state of mind. Further, this was now also the statutory position because under Art. 4 (4) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition: “The acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret shall also be considered unlawful whenever a person, at the time of the acquisition, use or disclosure, knew or ought, under the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret had been obtained directly or indirectly from another person who was using or disclosing the trade secret unlawfully within the meaning of paragraph 3.”’
Employment Blog, 9th June 2020
Source: employment11kbw.com
‘In Duchy Farm Kennels Ltd v Steels [2020] EWHC 1208 (QB), the High Court addressed the consequences of a party breaching the confidentiality clause in a COT3 settlement, noting that the issue of law arising regarding the status of the clause had not been the subject of a previous appellate ruling.’
3PB, 2nd June 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘It is well established that a litigant may restrain his former solicitors from acting for his opponent where: (i) those former solicitors are in possession of relevant, adverse confidential information and (ii) there is even a slight risk of that information being disclosed (Bolkiah v KPMG).1 But the issue in Glencairn, was whether a litigant could prevent solicitors from acting for his current opponent because that firm had acted for a former opponent in similar litigation which was settled on confidential terms. Did the solicitors’ knowledge of the applicant’s confidential settlement strategy in similar litigation (against a different party) give an unfair advantage which meant the solicitors should be prohibited from acting?’
Hailsham Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2021