Précédent 1 / 76 Next

MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) Case Nos: HQ15X04128 HQ15X04127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 13/04/2018 Before : MR JUSTICE WARBY --------------------Between : (1) NT 1 (2) NT 2 Claimants - and GOOGLE LLC Defendant -andTHE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Intervenor ----------------------------------------Hugh Tomlinson QC & Jonathan Barnes (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Claimants Antony White QC and Catrin Evans QC (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Defendant Anya Proops QC & Rupert Paines (instructed by in-house lawyers for The Information Commissioner) for The Intervenor Hearing dates: 27-28 February, 1, 6-7, 12, 14 March 2018 --------------------- Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. MR JUSTICE WARBY

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

NT1 and NT2 v. Google LLC

Case Law

Country

United Kingdom

Country Location

Latitude: 52.32950805122076

Longitude: -1.4047851562500706

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United Kingdom

Decision Date: 13 avr. 2018

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Blocking or Filtering of Information

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Defamation
Privacy
Right to be Forgotten

Judicial Body: First Instance 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 Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Documents principaux

NT1 and NT2 v. Google LLC.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue