header-logo header-logo

02 December 2010
Issue: 7444 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Firms pay price for data breaches

Monetary penalties for “serious” data protection breaches

Two organisations, one a county council, have been served the first monetary penalties for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Organisations can be fined up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the 1998 Act. Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham used these powers last week for the first time, fining Hertfordshire County council £100,000 and employment services company, A4e £60,000.

Graham said: “These first monetary penalties send a strong message to all organisations handling personal information. Get it wrong and you do substantial harm to individuals and the reputation of your business.”

Hertfordshire’s data breach concerned two separate instances of faxes sent to the wrong person by members of the childcare litigation unit.
The first fax involved highly sensitive details of a child sexual abuse case then before the courts. The second fax contained details of child care proceedings and domestic violence records.

Ruling the council failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the second mistake occurring, Graham said it “was difficult to imagine information more sensitive”.

A4e’s breach happened when an employee had their laptop stolen—it contained unencrypted personal information of more than 24,000 people who had used community legal advice centres in Hull and Leicester. Graham ruled A4e had breached the Act by failing to encrypt the laptop.
Both organisations reported the breach to the ICO.

Tom Morrison, partner, Rollits, says: “Both of these cases show how everyday activities can have serious and unintended consequences for an organisation, its staff and the individuals whose personal information may be compromised. Every IT team across the country should be making sure that mobile devices are properly encrypted, and their management teams should be supporting those efforts not least because the senior people within an organisation can in some situations have personal liability for a data protection breach.

“On a practical level, any organisation which provides employees with laptops should identify whether information really needs to be held on that laptop or whether the laptop should be used to connect to a secure service hosted remotely.”
 

Issue: 7444 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll