<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>edisclosure myth or reality? &#187; Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/category/cases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure</link>
	<description>From litigation to the arbitration regime</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 10:14:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Right to be forgotten&#8217; &#8211; 2 claimants v Google</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2018/06/25/right-to-be-forgotten-2-claimants-v-google/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2018/06/25/right-to-be-forgotten-2-claimants-v-google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2018]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/?p=839</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Catching up with my backlog of news. News on 13th April 2018: Search engine giant Google has been ordered to remove links to articles about the historic criminal convictions of a businessman in the first &#8216;right to be forgotten’ case to be decided in England and Wales. Ruling in NT 1 and NT 2 v [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Catching up with my backlog of news.<br />
News on 13th April 2018:<br />
<em>Search engine giant Google has been ordered to remove links to articles about the historic criminal convictions of a businessman in the first &#8216;right to be forgotten’ case to be decided in England and Wales. Ruling in NT 1 and NT 2 v Google LLC  today, Mr Justice Warby reached opposite conclusions about the two claimants, identified as NT 1 and NT 2, based on the nature of the criminal convictions and the extent to which publication of information related to the claimant&#8217;s private life</em><br />
Read more about <a href="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/google-must-delete-links-in-right-to-be-forgotten-case/5065677.article" title="Google must delete links in 'right to be forgotten' case" target="_blank">&#8220;Google must delete links in &#8216;right to be forgotten&#8217; case&#8221;</a> at the lawgazette.co.uk site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2018/06/25/right-to-be-forgotten-2-claimants-v-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Data protection (under current DPA) appeal cases</title>
		<link>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2018/02/04/data-protection-under-current-dpa-appeal-cases/</link>
		<comments>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2018/02/04/data-protection-under-current-dpa-appeal-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2018 19:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2018]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data Protection and Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/?p=740</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just catching up on my tweets and found an interesting post curated by &#8220;The Data Chain&#8221; an online paper (setup by me). This interesting post: &#8220;Data protection in the Court of Appeal &#038; the right to be forgotten&#8221; &#8211; not #GDPR-related &#8211; but will be significant post-GDPR era (from 25th May 2018 onwards). The appeal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just catching up on my tweets and found an interesting post curated by <a href="https://paper.li/iadrt/1334938891?edition_id=f847ee30-0728-11e8-84c2-0cc47a0d164b#/" title="The Data Chain paper" target="_blank">&#8220;The Data Chain&#8221;</a> an online paper (setup by me).</p>
<p>This interesting post: <a href="https://panopticonblog.com/2018/01/31/data-protection-court-appeal-right-forgotten/" title="Data protection in the Court of Appeal &#038; the right to be forgotten" target="_blank">&#8220;Data protection in the Court of Appeal &#038; the right to be forgotten</a>&#8221; &#8211; not #GDPR-related &#8211; but will be significant post-GDPR era (from 25th May 2018 onwards).<br />
The appeal cases extracted from the post are:</p>
<p>- DB v General Medical Council (application of mixed data provisions in s. 7 DPA) – due to be heard in March 2018,<br />
- TLT v Home Office (accidental online disclosure of information relating to asylum seekers) – due to be heard in April 2018 – (note, the appeal does not address the quantum of the awards made in that case but instead focuses on the question of whether compensation ought in principle to have been awarded to individuals who were not referred to by name in the disclosed spreadsheet but who were nonetheless affected by the disclosure);<br />
- Stunt v Associated Newspapers (challenge to the stay mechanism under s. 32 DPA) – due to be heard in June 2018 and, last but most certainly not least,<br />
- Various Claimants v WM Morrison Supermarket PLC (group litigation data breach case) – due to be heard by the Court of Appeal before the end of 2018.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://jollyvip.com/edisclosure/2018/02/04/data-protection-under-current-dpa-appeal-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
