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 links delisted depends on a fact-specific balancing of the claimants' privacy and data protection rights against the public interest in access to information and freedom of expression. For NT2, the balance favoured delisting as the information was old, of little public interest, and its continued availability was an illegitimate interference with his rights. For NT1, the balance favoured Google, as the information remained relevant to the public and the claimant's conduct, and delisting was not justified. Damages were not awarded as no actionable damage was established.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 799
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 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
NT2's claim for delisting succeeded; NT1's claim failed; no damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Right to Be Forgotten, Spent Convictions, Data Processing, Search Engine Liability, Misuse of Private Information, Balancing of Privacy and Freedom of Expression
Data Protection Privacy Law Tort Law Human Rights Right to Be Forgotten Spent Convictions Data Processing Search Engine Liability +2 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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NT 1

Claimant

NT 2

Claimant

Google LLC

Defendant

The Information Commissioner

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to have links to reports of their spent convictions delisted from Google Search results under data protection and privacy law
  2. 2 Whether continued listing of such links constitutes inaccurate or excessive processing of personal data
  3. 3 Whether Google is liable for damages for continued listing after delisting requests

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the right to have links delisted depends on a fact-specific balancing of the claimants' privacy and data protection rights against the public interest in access to information and freedom of expression. For NT2, the balance favoured delisting as the information was old, of little public interest, and its continued availability was an illegitimate interference with his rights. For NT1, the balance favoured Google, as the information remained relevant to the public and the claimant's conduct, and delisting was not justified. Damages were not awarded as no actionable damage was established.

Court Disposition

NT2's claim for delisting succeeded; NT1's claim failed; no damages awarded.

Orders

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