Previous 9 / 76 Next

MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC Some key points of data protection law 22. The DP Directive and the DPA impose duties on “data controllers”, that is to say those who make decisions about how and why “personal data” relating to “data subjects” is “processed”. “Personal data” is a broad notion, comprising a wide range of information which relates to an individual and is processed by computer. “Processing” is a very widely defined concept, encompassing almost any dealings with personal data, including holding the data and disclosing it or the information in it: see DPA s 1(1). The statutory duty imposed on a data controller by DPA s 4(4) is, subject to section 27(1), “… to comply with the data protection principles in relation to all personal data with respect to which he is the data controller.” 23. The data protection principles are listed in DPA Schedule 1. The principles relied on by the claimants are the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth (of eight): “1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless— (a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and (b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met. 2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. 3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed. 4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date 5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. 6. Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act.” 24. The term “sensitive personal data”, which appears in the First Principle, is defined by DPA s 2 and includes:“… personal data consisting of information as to ... the data subject [‘s] — … (e) … physical or mental health or condition … …

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

NT1 and NT2 v. Google LLC

Case Law

Country

United Kingdom

Country Location

Latitude: 52.32950805122076

Longitude: -1.4047851562500706

Country Location (linked Case Law): United Kingdom

Decision Date: Apr 13, 2018

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Access Restriction/Content Regulation/Information Control

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Defamation
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: England and Wales High Court

Case Number: [2018] EWHC 799 (QB)

Case Summary: The England and Wales High Court giving its first decision on the “right to be forgotten” ordered Google to delist search results referring to the spent conviction of a businessman known as NT2 but rejected a similar request made by a second businessman, NT1. The claimants had been convicted of criminal offences many years ago and complained that search results returned by Google that featured links to third-party reports about the convictions were inaccurate and/or old, irrelevant and of no public interest, or otherwise an illegitimate interference with their rights. The claims were made under data protection law and the English law tort of misuse of private information. The Court rejected NT1's request based on the fact that he was a public figure with a role in public life so that the crime and its punishment could not be considered of a private nature, but was regarded as a matter of public interest, specifically a business crime, its prosecution and punishment. Moreover the Court said that NT1 had not accepted his guilt, had misled the public and the Court, and shown no remorse. In contrast, the Court upheld NT2’s delisting claim, reasoning that his crime did not involve dishonesty, his punishment had been based on a plea of guilt, and information about the crime and its punishment had become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google to justify its continued availability. The Court granted NT1 permission to appeal: "It is quite likely that there will be more claims of this kind, and the fact that NT2 has succeeded is likely to reinforce that,” the Judge said.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Primary Documents

NT1 and NT2 v. Google LLC.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

NT1 and NT2 v. Google LLC

Primary Documents

Notifications