NT 1 & NT 2 v Google LLC

NT 1 & NT 2 v Google LLC

For NT1, the court found the information was not materially inaccurate, remained relevant to his business activities, and his Article 8 rights did not outweigh the public interest in access to the information; thus, delisting was not justified. For NT2, the court found the information was inaccurate in one article and otherwise out of date, irrelevant, and of insufficient legitimate interest; his Article 8 rights, including impact on family life, outweighed the public interest, justifying delisting.

Parties
Claimant: NT1; Claimant: NT2; Defendant: Google LLC; Intervenor: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
NT1's claim dismissed; NT2's claim upheld in part
Legal Topics
Right to Be Forgotten, Spent Convictions, Misuse of Private Information, Freedom of Expression, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10, Accuracy of Personal Data, Rehabilitation of Offenders
Data Protection Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Right to Be Forgotten Spent Convictions Misuse of Private Information Freedom of Expression +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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NT1

Claimant

NT2

Claimant

Google LLC

Defendant

The Information Commissioner

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google is obliged to delist search results containing spent conviction information under data protection and privacy law
  2. 2 Whether the information is inaccurate under the Data Protection Act
  3. 3 Whether continued listing constitutes unjustified interference with privacy/data protection rights

Ratio Decidendi

For NT1, the court found the information was not materially inaccurate, remained relevant to his business activities, and his Article 8 rights did not outweigh the public interest in access to the information; thus, delisting was not justified. For NT2, the court found the information was inaccurate in one article and otherwise out of date, irrelevant, and of insufficient legitimate interest; his Article 8 rights, including impact on family life, outweighed the public interest, justifying delisting.

Court Disposition

NT1's claim dismissed; NT2's claim upheld in part

Orders

  • NT1: No order for delisting, blocking, erasure, or damages.
  • NT2: Delisting order for inaccurate article and remaining URLs; no compensation or damages.