BEKOE v ISLINGTON LBC (2023) EWHC 1668 (KB) is concerned with a claim against the Council that succeeded for the common law tort of misuse of the claimant’s private financial information and reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of it, and breach of his rights under Articles 5, 12, 15, 23 and 82 of the GDPR, including in relation to inadequate and delayed response to a Subject Access Request, under Article 8 of ECHR, and under the Data Protection Act 2018.

On Misuse of Private Information, the Judge concluded:-
“48. There is ample authority that financial information can be categorised as “private information” for the purposes of the tort of misuse of private information … There is therefore a reasonable expectation that this kind of information would be kept private. A reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities placed in the same position as the claimant would expect that a comprehensive snapshot of their general financial information would be kept private.”
“51. In this case, the combination of financial information relating to several bank accounts and mortgage accounts including balances with the comprehensive view it gave of Mr Bekoe’s financial situation is clearly private information. In addition, from the evidence before me, it would appear that it is not only Mr Bekoe’s private information that has been compromised but also that of his son.”
“56. …I find that the defendant did misuse private information belonging to Mr Bekoe by accessing details relating to a collection of bank accounts and mortgage accounts associated with Mr Bekoe (and others) in July 2015 without lawful authority.”

On the GDPR, the Judge found that the Council had violated the claimant’s rights under Articles 5, 12 and 15 of the GDPR.

On quantum, the Judge observed:-
“65. Compensation is available in the tort of misuse of private information on a wider basis than under the GDPR. In particular, a successful claimant is entitled to damages to compensate them for the loss or diminution of the right to control the use of their private information independently of any distress caused …”
“69. I find that … the subsequent conduct of the defendant, in this case, is sufficient to trigger aggravated damages. The way that the trial and the litigation as a whole has been conducted by the defendant has revealed a lack of respect for legal requirements related to privacy and data protection. Repeated failure to disclose key information, disclosure at the final hour, two working days before the trial, and the absence of any clear evidence to support or substantiate Defence submissions relating to alleged fraud have clearly aggravated the distress caused to the claimant. To be clear, it is not the assertion of a Defence in this case which triggers aggravated damages but rather the absolute failure to evidence it along with the continued unjustified shape shifting of the basis of the defence which continued right up until Mr Cunliffe’s final submissions at trial.
70. …I find that the aggravated nature of the damages should be wrapped up in one overall figure.”
“73. In this case, taking account of the misuse of private information, the loss of the right to control the information and the level of distress caused by the GDPR breaches along with the aggravating factors, I award an overall figure of £6,000 for damages.”

In TRANSPORT FOR LONDON v PERSONS UNKNOWN (2023) EWHC 1038 (Admin) a final injunction is granted against named defendants and persons unknown. They were supporters of, and activists connected with, INSULATE BRITAIN. The injunction prohibits them from blocking identified roads and bridges during their protests.

In considering whether a misconduct dismissal was fair or outside the band of reasonable responses open to the employer and unfair, an Employment Tribunal must guard against a “ substitution mindset “, both in relation to the employer’s investigation and the decision to dismiss, and consider the fairness of the disciplinary process as a whole : Leicester City Council v Chapman (2022) EAT 178 at paras 31-37 inclusive.

BREEN v ESSO PETROLEUM (2022) EWCA Civ 1405 is concerned with an environmental protestor guilty of civil contempt of court and the appropriate sanction. The Court addresses in paras 6 & 7 the correct approach to sanctions in contempt cases and in paras 8-11, 13-15, and 72 the particular considerations in protestor cases. An important objective of the sanction is to ensure future compliance with the order in question. The importance of complying with court orders, no matter the sincerity of the protestor’s views, is paramount. In a democratic society, it is the duty of responsible citizens to obey the law and respect the rights of others, even where the law or other people’s activities are contrary to the protestor’s own moral conviction. There is no default position or presumption that a protestor in contempt of court will ordinarily receive a suspended sentence. There is no principle that immediate custody is appropriate only in cases of direct harm and disruption to the public.

Part 10 of the Equality Act 2010 relates to contracts and other agreements, and collective agreements. Section 144 relates to contracting out. There is a general prohibition. However, there are exceptions from the prohibition. A “qualifying settlement agreement” will not be unenforceable. The meaning of “qualifying settlement agreement” is addressed in Section 147. A number of specified conditions must be met. These include that the contract must relate to “the particular complaint”. In BATHGATE v TECHNIP (2022) EAT 155 it is ruled that the words “the particular complaint” anticipate the existence of an actual complaint or circumstances where grounds for a complaint exist. They are not apt to describe a potential future complaint. It was held that the redundancy agreement in that case did not prevent a claim being made for age discrimination.

In Plymouth City Council v ABC (2022) EWHC 2426 (Ch) the Council claims that the defendant downloaded personal data and confidential information otherwise than for the purpose of carrying out her duties as an employee of the Council and without the Council’s consent. The defendant applied for anonymity. This has been refused. The issue was the effect if any of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. That Act does not confer power on the Court to order that any party to proceedings should be anonymised. What it does do is to make it a criminal offence to identify certain persons in any publication thereafter. The question was whether the Act applies where there are no criminal proceedings in which an allegation of a relevant offence has been made. There was no clear authority on the point, albeit Sales J as he then was had, in National Westminster Bank v Lucas (2014) EWHC 653 (Ch), the Jimmy Saville case, expressed doubt that the Act had the effect of granting anonymity outside the context of criminal proceedings, and Keenan J in Birmingham City Council v Riaz (2016) 1 FLR 797 did not appear to consider that the 1992 Act was engaged. The Judge in the Plymouth case concluded, at paragraph 30,  that the Act applies only where a formal allegation is made in criminal proceedings, that is, where a criminal charge has been made.

In R (Challis) v SoS for Health and Social Care (2022) EWHC 2269 (Admin) Steyn J at para 73 addresses the legal principles in circumstances where the sole ground of judicial review is irrationality. It is for the Court to determine whether, viewed objectively, the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker. Unequal treatment is not a distinct ground of review. In assessing an allegation of unequal treatment the question is whether irrational distinctions have been drawn between different groups. Consistency is a generally desirable objective. It is not an absolute rule.

The Appeal in HXA v Surrey County Council (2022 ) EWCA Civ 1196 involves consideration of the circumstances in which a local authority, and/or the social workers for whom it is vicariously liable, owe a duty of care toa child to whom the local authority is providing child protection services. The Court of Appeal’s Conclusions are set out from paragraph 90 to 110.. A duty of care cannot arise simply as a result of the authority’s general duties, but may arise as a result of its specific exercise of its specific duties to a child if, on a case by case basis and the specific facts of the case, the circumstances amount to an assumption of responsibility for the child, and the circumstances in which an authority may assume responsibility for a child are not confined to cases where it acquires parental responsibility under a care order.

In PRIMAVERA ASSOCIATES LTD V HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCIL (2022) EWHC 1240 (Ch) the defendant local planning authority applied, with partial success, to strike out a witness statement made on behalf of the claimant property development company. The claimant alleged that the Council had been negligent in its planning process. Written statements are to contain evidence that the maker would be allowed to give orally. They are not to provide commentary on documents or engage in argument or include opinion. They must state how well the witness personally recalls the matter addressed and provide details of documents used to refresh memory in respect of matters of fact. They can provide relevant background information known to the witness.

Part 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 relates to Judicial Review. It consists of two Sections.  Section 1 relates to quashing orders.  Section 2 excludes review of Upper Tribunal permission to appeal decisions.  Section 1(1) provides that a quashing order may include provision (a) for the quashing not to take effect until a date specified in the order, or (b) removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the quashing.  In deciding whether to exercise a power in subsection (1) the Court must have regard to six specified matters.