Editorial

This issue of Information Technology Law Reports contains two cases. The first,  AXB v BXA, concerned threats to misuse private information, which were part of a course of conduct amounting to harassment. The case illustrates the weight the court will attach to how the claimant’s family are affected by the defendant’s course of conduct and the publicity the case attracted from the trial and judgment. Anonymity and holding the proceedings in private were issues considered at every interim stage throughout the litigation. The decision to grant a final injunction was based on the defendant’s conduct, which involved initiating claims involving unsupported allegations of a scandalous nature in other jurisdictions. The second case, Lownie v (1) The Information Commissioner (2) National Archives (3) FCO, concerned information related to the Cambridge spy ring and the application and meaning of several exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

Richard Budworth
Editor, Information Technology Law Reports

AXB v BXA
High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Sir David Eady
21 March 2018 
[2018] EWHC 588 (QB)

Harassment – deceit – false representations – misuse of private information – privacy – claim under tort of deceit succeeded in part – harassment and misuse of private information claims succeeded. 

Lownie v (1) The Information Commissioner (2) The National Archives (3)  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 
First Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
Andrew Bartlett QC (Judge), Suzanne Cosgrave and Rosalind Tatum
29 June 2018
EA/2017/0087
Data protection – Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Foreign and Commonwealth Office files – Cambridge spy ring – sections 23, 24 and 38 Freedom of Information Act 2000 – exemptions – public interest – disclosure – appeal dismissed.