header-logo header-logo

19 March 2010
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family law

R (on the application of H and another) v A City Council [2010] EWHC 466 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 127 (Mar)

It was settled law that disclosure of confidential information (in the instant case, an individual’s conviction for a sexual offence to identified work colleagues) should only be made when there was a “pressing need” for it. Moreover, it was no longer correct to assume that priority had to be given to the need to protect the vulnerable over the right to respect for the private life of the individual. Where competing rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were in issue, neither had precedence over the other.
 

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

Sharpe Pritchard—Victoria Heald-Barraclough

Sharpe Pritchard—Victoria Heald-Barraclough

Magic Circle hire strengthens Sharpe Pritchard’s infrastructure finance capability

Lewis Silkin—Iskander Fernandez

Lewis Silkin—Iskander Fernandez

Lewis Silkin adds corporate crime specialist to growing dispute resolution team

Morr & Co—Michael Charalambous

Morr & Co—Michael Charalambous

Morr Co strengthens private client team with partner appointment

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll