In February 2021, the High Court handed down judgment London Borough of Lambeth v AM (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 186 (QB), in which Browne Jacobson LLP acted for the Claimant Council. The judgment is critical reading for public bodies who are required to take action to restrict the use of confidential information in circumstances where that information has been inadvertently disclosed to a third-party.
In February 2021, the High Court handed down judgment London Borough of Lambeth v AM (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 186 (QB), in which Browne Jacobson LLP acted for the Claimant Council.
The judgment is critical reading for public bodies who are required to take action to restrict the use of confidential information in circumstances where that information has been inadvertently disclosed to a third-party. This is most common in response to a request under either the Data Protection Act 2018 or Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Breach of confidence is a complex area of the law. However, the important lesson for public bodies is that steps that can be taken to protect confidential information that has been disclosed to a third-party either by mistake, or due to the improper conduct of a third-party.
The background to this case concerned a referral made by the Defendant’s sister (HJ) to the Council’s children’s services department in confidence, under condition of anonymity, in respect of the Defendant’s daughter. After the referral was eventually closed, the Defendant made a subject access request to the Council for a copy of the file held by children’s services.
Unfortunately, the Defendant was able to uncover the confidential information that had been redacted by the Council by copying and pasting the file into Microsoft Word. The Defendant discovered HJ’s identity and threatened to use the confidential information to bring a claim against her for defamation, harassment and various other torts.
The Council commenced a claim for breach of confidence, to restrain the Defendant from using the confidential information. The essential ingredients of the tort of breach of confidence are: (1) the information is confidential; (2) it was imparted to import an obligation of confidence; and (3) there has been or will be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.
Following an interim injunction obtained on behalf of the Council, the matter was set down for an eight-day trial in July 2020. The Defendant’s position was that even if the tort of breach of confidence was made out, he relied on the public interest of iniquity on the basis that his sister had been acting with malice when making the referral. Also, the Council had been a ‘bad actor’ due to the manner it had assessed the referral and handled his personal data (the latter argument was struck out at an interim hearing).
In a detailed judgment, Mr Justice Pepperall held that HJ’s identity was confidential information because of the wider public interest in encouraging members of the public to come forward to help the authorities to protect children. This protection did not come to an end because either the Defendant’s own personal data was involved, or the Council had closed its investigation by the time of the disclosure.
It was clear on the evidence that the Council had attempted to keep HJ’s identity confidential, and the Defendant was aware of that. A duty of confidence will be imposed where obviously confidential information is obtained by design, such as where an individual obtains the information improperly or surreptitiously, or by chance, such as where the document is dropped in a public place and picked up by a passer-by.
While detriment to the referrer of information is required in a claim by a private litigant, the position is different for public bodies. They must establish that the public interest will suffer detriment if an injunction is not granted. In this case, there was no doubt that it was in the public interest to enforce the confidentiality of the identity of an informant who reports their concerns about the care, health and development of a child to the relevant council. Indeed, a failure to do so would undermine public trust in a council’s ability to protect the confidentiality of future informants and therefore put at risk the authority’s effectiveness in protecting the children within its area. The importance of ensuring the protection of both vulnerable children and those raising safeguarding concerns was clearly a fundamental consideration in the judgment.
Even if the referrer had acted maliciously, this alone would not be sufficient to constitute a defence in the public interest, as the public interest also protects untruthful or malicious informants. It is necessary to consider whether the conduct of the informant outweighs the powerful public interest in respecting the confidence of those who make anonymous referrals to a local authority. However, in this case there was no public interest defence because the evidence did not establish that HJ had acted with any malice when making the referral. HJ was found to be a reliable and honest witness, motivated by concern for the child’s wellbeing.
For these reasons, the Court concluded that the Defendant had breached the duty of confidence owed to the Council and therefore the Council was entitled to final injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant from using the confidential information.
This case reinforces that the courts can, and will, prevent the use of information acquired from public bodies, particularly in circumstances where to allow its use would undermine fundamental principles of confidentiality. It provides reassurance to public bodies that where information is acquired from them steps can be taken to prevent that information from being shared more widely.
First published in the Alarm Journal - Stronger in July 2021.
Senior Associate
matthew.alderton@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2747
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
Since the UK left the EU and are now able to move away from the EU data protection regime, the UK government have implemented a national data strategy with the aim of reducing the burden on organisations but maintaining a high data protection standard.
In this article we look at local authority companies and whether they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. And for those that are, what information are they legally obliged to submit.
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
The use of social media platforms and applications can have overwhelmingly positive benefits for public bodies. However, regulatory action recently taken by the Information Commissioner, has highlighted various pitfalls that public bodies should seek to avoid if allowing staff to use social media as a communication tool.
The data protection legislation (namely, the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018) contain various provisions that deal with the processing of personal data for research purposes.
Public bodies will be pleased to hear that another significant court decision (Ali v Luton Borough Council [2022] EWHC 132 (QB)) has been made that is favourable to data controllers.
This article has five excellent top tips for strong data compliance in 2022, including; embracing near misses, leading from the top, outcomes-focused training, learning walks, consequences.
The cases summarised give considerable comfort to data controllers seeking to defend themselves against claims that relate to breaches arising as a result of a failure rather than a direct act and/or are based on assertions of damage or distress that are exaggerated, unsubstantiated or bear little relation to the breach itself.
The Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s 2019 decision in the case Lloyd (Respondent) v Google LLC (Appellant) which allowed the claimant, Mr Lloyd, to serve a representative action on Google on behalf of over four million iPhone users who were seeking damages for ‘loss of control’ of personal data.
Cookies and similar technologies are a useful and often necessary tool for online businesses, but their use is governed by both the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) and the GDPR.
Student and staff files will be full of personal data, much of which may be particularly sensitive such as health information (known under the data protection legislation as “special category” data).
In February 2021, the High Court handed down judgment London Borough of Lambeth v AM (No. 2) [2021] EWHC 186 (QB), in which Browne Jacobson LLP acted for the Claimant Council. The judgment is critical reading for public bodies who are required to take action to restrict the use of confidential information in circumstances where that information has been inadvertently disclosed to a third-party.
The Supreme Court’s pending decision could potentially open the floodgates for data privacy litigation going forward.
Watch our on-demand video for our popular Claims Club where we discussed the risk of data sharing, risks in a changing climate, highway claims and what we can see on the horizon.
This judgment is critical reading for public bodies who need to take action to restrain the use of confidential information in circumstances where that information has been inadvertently disclosed to a third party.
UK organisations need to comply with the UK GDPR and continue to be subject to the EU GDPR where EU data is being processed, so there may be two versions of the GDPR to comply with for some personal data processing.
We talk about the key legal principles that apply when processing requests for access to confidential information and gave some practical tips on how to deal with issues that might arise when Trusts are dealing with complex information requests.
The adoption of smart technology solutions by the health and care sector has exploded in 2020. The pandemic has driven the sector to increase its use of smart phone technology solutions (“Apps”), an example of which is conducting video consultations and assessments.
Despite the lack of clarity around Brexit, there are key data issues that can be addressed now. We can help you with the steps you need to take to mitigate the risks.
In May 2019 the Government consulted on a range of options to enhance the role of Companies House and increase the transparency of companies and other legal entities. On 18 September 2020 BEIS published the Government's response following a huge response to the consultation.
On demand webinar, focusing on practical solutions to utilise from home in agreements and dealings with business, data and digital law and how covid-19 has changed legal privilege.
This year, schools are required to assess the grades students would have been likely to have achieved in their GCSE, AS and A level exams. As not all schools are fully open, we have set out guidance on both Freedom of Information, and Subject Access Requests in case you receive either or both types of requests over the next few months.
The GDPR requires all businesses to implement ‘Data Protection by Design & Default’ but what does that mean in practice and how can businesses practically comply?
Data protection law requires every business that deals with personal data to ensure that they have “Technical and Organisational Measures ” in place to keep that data secure. Losing that data could seriously damage the company’s reputation and potentially land it with a fine from the ICO and with claims for compensation.
The ICO has recently released updated guidance for businesses who are grappling with concerns around data protection compliance during the ongoing Covid-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic
One of Browne Jacobson's advisors fills us in where she recently came across a situation that reminded me of the importance of procurement and freedom of information (FOI) officers in an organisation working together.
During this short webinar our experts will deconstruct the most typically occurring contractual disputes.
Did you know that cyber attackers can use publicly available information about your business and employees to make their attacks more successful? Information is often gleaned from websites and public social media accounts.
If you provide goods or services online that might be of interest to children then you’re going to want to go through the ICO’s “Age Appropriate Design Code of Practice” - a code requiring minimum standards of any online service aimed (or which is likely to interest) children.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’) allows members of the public to request information from public bodies. As guidance issued by the Information Commissioner explains, the main principle behind FOIA is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to.
As part of our regular updates for in-house lawyers, Richard takes a look at what has changed in data protection law over the last six months
Although there is uncertainty about what arrangements will apply when the UK leaves the EU, there are a number of practical steps that can be taken now to prepare from a data protection perspective and to ensure that any data flows to and from the EU can continue post Brexit.
Following a dispute over a right of way, the parties’ solicitors agreed in an exchange of emails (constituting a single email chain) to compromise the dispute by the defendant (R) transferring to the claimants (N) a small piece of land adjacent to Lake Windermere.
