NT 1 & NT 2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (13 April 2018)

NT 1 & NT 2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (13 April 2018)

The court held that the right to have search results delisted is not absolute and requires a fact-specific balancing of the claimants' privacy/data protection rights against the public interest in access to information and freedom of expression. For NT2, the balance favored delisting as the information was old, of limited public interest, and its continued availability was an illegitimate interference with his rights. For NT1, the balance favored Google, as the information remained relevant to the public and the claimant's conduct, and delisting was not justified. Compensation was not awarded as no actionable damage was established.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 799 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: NT 1; Claimant: NT 2; Defendant: Google LLC; Intervenor: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (data Protection, Privacy, Tort) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
NT1's claim dismissed; NT2's claim succeeded in part.
Legal Topics
Right to Be Forgotten, Spent Convictions, Search Engine Liability, Misuse of Private Information, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights, Data Controller Obligations, Compensation for Data Breaches
Data Protection Privacy Law Tort Law Human Rights Right to Be Forgotten Spent Convictions Search Engine Liability Misuse of Private Information +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NT 1

Claimant

NT 2

Claimant

Google LLC

Defendant

The Information Commissioner

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil (data Protection, Privacy, Tort) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google is obliged to delist search results containing information about spent convictions under data protection and privacy law
  2. 2 Whether the continued listing of such information constitutes misuse of private information
  3. 3 Whether compensation is payable for continued listing after delisting requests

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the right to have search results delisted is not absolute and requires a fact-specific balancing of the claimants' privacy/data protection rights against the public interest in access to information and freedom of expression. For NT2, the balance favored delisting as the information was old, of limited public interest, and its continued availability was an illegitimate interference with his rights. For NT1, the balance favored Google, as the information remained relevant to the public and the claimant's conduct, and delisting was not justified. Compensation was not awarded as no actionable damage was established.

Court Disposition

NT1's claim dismissed; NT2's claim succeeded in part.

Orders

  • Google ordered to delist specified URLs relating to NT2 from search results for his name.
  • No order for delisting in respect of NT1.