J19 & Anor v Facebook Ireland [2013] NIQB 113 (15 November 2013)

J19 & Anor v Facebook Ireland [2013] NIQB 113 (15 November 2013)

The interim injunctions were discharged because the orders lacked the necessary precision required for mandatory injunctions, and the evidence did not establish a sufficient likelihood of breach of Article 2 rights. Imposing a broad monitoring obligation on Facebook would be disproportionate and contrary to the regulatory framework, which does not require general monitoring by intermediaries. Notice and take down procedures are sufficient under current law.

Citation
[2013] NIQB 113
Parties
Plaintiff: J19; Plaintiff: J20; Defendant: Facebook Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary/discharge Interim Injunctions / Interlocutory (application to Discharge Interim Injunctions)
Outcome
Interim injunctions discharged
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Electronic Commerce Regulations, Obligations of Internet Intermediaries
Human Rights Privacy Law Defamation Data Protection Internet Law Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy +4 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J19

Plaintiff

J20

Plaintiff

Facebook Ireland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary/discharge Interim Injunctions / Interlocutory (application to Discharge Interim Injunctions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions restraining Facebook from publishing or allowing publication of plaintiffs' personal information should be maintained
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs established a real and immediate risk to life or inhuman/degrading treatment under the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the injunctions sought were sufficiently precise and proportionate given the regulatory context for internet intermediaries

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunctions were discharged because the orders lacked the necessary precision required for mandatory injunctions, and the evidence did not establish a sufficient likelihood of breach of Article 2 rights. Imposing a broad monitoring obligation on Facebook would be disproportionate and contrary to the regulatory framework, which does not require general monitoring by intermediaries. Notice and take down procedures are sufficient under current law.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions discharged

Orders

  • First interim injunction discharged as material already removed
  • Second interim injunction discharged for lack of precision and proportionality