Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 1022 (KB) (30 April 2026)
The High Court refused a class-based anonymity order in a 2,502-claimant data breach claim, finding the evidence too general and speculative to displace open justice.
The High Court refused a 2,502-claimant application for anonymity in a data breach claim, holding the evidence was too general to justify departing from open justice.
A First-tier Tribunal strike-out under section 166 DPA 2018: the Commissioner had already taken appropriate steps, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
The appellant failed to identify any legal misdirection, material error of fact, or procedural impropriety by the trial judge. The judge correctly applied the law to the facts, made reasoned findings on credibility, and lawfully dismissed the claim. There was no evidence of bias, unfairness, or improper conduct. The applications for permission to appeal and stay of execution were refused as totally without merit.
Source excerpt
The application for anonymity and reporting restrictions is dismissed because the claimant has not provided clear and cogent evidence that derogations from open justice are necessary or proportionate to protect his Article 8 or 14 rights. The default position of open justice is strengthened by the public interest in the issues raised, and the claimant's vulnerabilities do not justify departure from this principle. Embarrassment or distress from publicity is not sufficient reason for anonymity, and reporting restrictions cannot be imposed as the claimant's name has already been used in open co…
Source excerpt
The Tribunal struck out Jose Marques’s section 166 DPA 2018 application, holding that the Information Commissioner had already provided an outcome and that the relief sought was outside its jurisdiction.
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to comply with the Tribunal’s direction to provide written submissions, as warned under Rule 8(3)(a).
Source excerpt
Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 (22 August 2025)
Court of Appeal held that proof of third-party disclosure is not required for a GDPR compensation claim, and remitted individual claims for case-by-case review.
The High Court upheld liability for misuse of private information and breach of confidence after an employer disclosed an ex-employee’s contact details to her abusive ex-partner.
Raine v JD Wetherspoon PLC [2025] EWHC 1593 (KB) (27 June 2025)
The High Court upheld liability for misuse of private information and breach of confidence after a company disclosed a former employee’s contact details to her abusive ex-partner.
Explore more
