header-logo header-logo

13 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Data protection

Mosley v Google Inc and another [2015] EWHC 59 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 06 (Feb)

The first defendant, Google, sought to strike out the claimant’s proceedings, claiming damages and injunctive relief with respect to images and footage of private sexual activity, or judgment in its favour on the basis that the claimant had no prospect of success. The Queen’s Bench Division, in dismissing the application held that the claimant’s primary case on ss 10 and/or 13 and 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 was not such that it had no real prospect of success. On the contrary, it seemed to be a viable claim which raised questions of general public interest which ought to proceed to trial.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Shakespeare Martineau—David Vaughan

Shakespeare Martineau—David Vaughan

Shakespeare Martineau appoints new London office head as firm continues investment in capital

Browne Jacobson—Kevin Moore

Browne Jacobson—Kevin Moore

Browne Jacobson strengthens All-Island life sciences platform with appointment of leading Galway MedTech lawyer

Clarke Willmott—Latitude Law

Clarke Willmott—Latitude Law

National law firm strengthens commercial offering with acquisition of leading immigration practice

NEWS
Mr Justice Nicklin’s decision to order costs on an indemnity basis may be a ‘significant win’ but it’s still ‘far from game, set and match’ for Associated Newspapers, a former costs judge has said
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners
back-to-top-scroll