September 5, 2009


Case 1

Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746

This case is about the claimant or the appellant, Mr Michael John Durant who seeks disclosure of information that he claims to be his personal data under section 7 of Data Protection Act 1998. When Mr Michael claims his personal data, Financial Services Authority response to it but refuse to give further information to the when the claimant seek for further disclosure.

Therefore the appeal give the public opportunity to know the proper interpretation of certain provisions of the Act in order to know the individual right to disclosure his personal data held by others. Mr Durant claim for the disclosure because he has lost the litigation against Barclay Bank PLS thus sought disclosure of various records in connection with the dispute.

The judge held that the information, seek by Mr Durant is not 'personal data' within the meaning of the Act thus dismiss the appeal. For further reading, click here.

Case 2

Criminal Proceedings v Lindqvist (Case C101/01) [2004] All ER (EC) 561

This case is about the defendant who set up a homepage on the internet. She set up internet pages at home on his personal computer to allow parishioners to obtain information they might need. The pages containes information about the applicant and her 18 colleagues in the parish including their:
  • full names
  • some of first names
  • jobs
  • hobbies
  • family circumstances
  • telephone numbers
She also stated that one colleague had injured on foot and was on half time on medical ground, She do not get consent to disclose all this information.

The public prosecutor brought a prosecution against the defendant, charging her under Swedish Law on Personal Data on the ground that she had possessed personal data without giving notification.

It was held that all her actions fall within the definition of Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 95/96. Besides, such processing personal data is not covered by any exceptions in Article 3(2) of the Directive. There is no transfer of data to the third country nor in conflict with the general principle of freedom of expression of other freedoms. Order accordingly.

For further reading, click here.

Case 3

Murray v Big Picture [2008] 2 FLR 599

This case is about invasion of personal privacy. The child's mother was world famous popular author namely the author of Harry Potter books which she wrote under the name of JK Rowling. The parent had taken necessary steps to secure and maintain the privacy and their child was never exposed to the public. When the child at age one year old, a photographer had took a picture of the child and his parent at public place. The photo was sold to national organization and due to that it was published in a magazine. The child issue proceedings against the photography agency and seeking injunction to prevent the photo from being publicize without his consent. The child also asks for damages on the ground of infringement of his right to privacy under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection Of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 and also for the misuse of private information.
The Court of Appeal in allowing the appeal held that the child has his own rights to privacy and the respondent was held to be liable for the infringement of right to privacy. For further reading,please click here.

Case 4

Douglas and others v Hello limited and others [2003] EMLR 585

This case involved a Hollywood celebrity, Catherine Zeta Jones and her husband Michael Douglas.On their wedding day on 18 November 2000, they had sold an exclusive right to published all the wedding photos to OK! magazines only. The dispute kicked off when one photographer,not from OK! magazine had enter the Douglases's wedding and sold of his unauthorised photograph of the wedding to Hello! magazine. The claimant commenced these proceeding by applying for an injunction to prevent publication of unauthorized photographs in Hello! magazine. The Douglases also sought damages from Hello! for breach of privacy and meanwhile OK! magazine sought compensation for the loss of its exclusive rights to publish.
The court of appeal held that in this case the the protected information was the photograph of the Douglases's wedding. By applying the test propounded by House of Lords in Campbell v MGN, the court found that photographs of the wedding is fell within the protection of the law of confidentiality as extended to cover private or personal information.

For further reading,click here.


bee ling said...

hey, the case seem interesting though i just read a glimpse of it..will read til the end if have time, hehe..:-)


thank you..u can read further all those cases..


N.HIDAYAT said...

i have read the cases,and it is so intresting..what about the cases in malaysia?

Renuka said...

Is there any case in Malaysia on data privacy?


to Renuka and Hidayat: we hv been searching for malaysian cases regarding data privacy too. but since our country did not hv any specific laws that govern data privacy, thus there was no reported cases. we'll inform u further if there happens to be a reported case... thanks for asking