POL00190619
POL00190619
From: Hugh Flemington[/O=MMS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=HUGH. FLEMINGTON14106A9A-9886-403D-
BF5B-E08821F432B3]
Sent: Wed 03/07/2013 8:53:
To: Rodric Willi
PM (UTC)
Susan
Subject: Re: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.F1D945106]
Yes but apart from that
Only joking!
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 08:52 PM
To: Hugh Flemington; Susan Crichton
Subject: Re: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
Indeed, but what expectation of privacy do we have when we:
- participate in a review conducted with an MP;
- which arose as a response to adverse publicity; and
- which we expressly acknowledged that the findings would be published?
From: Hugh Flemington
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 08:20 PM
To: Susan Crichton; Rodric Williams
Subject: Fw: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
Interesting
From: BARTY, Susan [
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 07:32 PM
To: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
Hugh
You are right that with a company it would more usually be a question of confidentiality, and I mentioned this to Rodric as
something we should keep in mind. However, there was a case back in 2000, in fact which one of my colleagues was connected
with, which made clear that a company could sue for an unwarranted infringement of privacy. This particular case was in the
context of secret filming by the BBC and a complaint made to the then Broadcasting Standards Commission ("BSC") which was
upheld.
In this case, on an application by the BBC to the High Court for judicial review, and in the context of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC, its reasoning being based on a finding that
privacy could only be applied to individuals and not companies. The Court of Appeal then reversed this decision and
held that the BSC was entitled to uphold privacy complaints by companies, as a company does have activities of a
private nature which may need protection from unwarranted intrusion. By way of example, the Court of Appeal said that
it would be a departure from proper standards to listen clandestinely to, or to record secretly, a board meeting or to
broadcast private correspondence.
POL00190619
POL00190619
Kind regards
Susan
Susan Barty
Partner
www.law-now.com
From: Hugh Flemington [
Sent: 03 July 2013 19:56
To: BARTY, Susan
Subject: Re: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
What kind of argument does a company mount re privacy plse???
From: BARTY, Susan}
Sent: Wednesday, July
To: Hugh Flemington
Subject: RE: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
D
Hi Hugh
it usually applies to individuals, but could also apply to a company.
Kind regards
Susan
Susan Barty
Partner
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
www.law-now.com
From: Hugh Flemington {7
Sent: 03 July 2013 19:43
To: BARTY, Susan
Subject: Re: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
Thanks Susan
Stupid question but does privacy only attach to individuals or can it apply to companies in any way?
From: BARTY, Susan I
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 06:19 PM
POL00190619
POL00190619
To: Susan Crichton; Hugh Flemington
Subject: Second Sight [CMCK-UK.FID945106]
Dear Susan and Hugh
You have asked for my opinion as to whether we can obtain an injunction in relation to the Second Sight report.
The availability of an interim injunction to restrain a defendant from publication of a defamatory document pending trial is
much more restricted in defamation cases and the courts have consistently demonstrated a reluctance to grant interim
injunctions. Even where it can be shown that there is a clear intention to publish a defamatory statement, English case
law makes it clear that an injunction can only be granted in relation to defamation cases where it can be shown that the
statement is unarguably defamatory, there are no grounds for concluding that the statement may be true, and there is no
other defence which might succeed. This has been well established as being a relatively low hurdle for any defendant to
overcome and, in effect, has meant that wherever a defendant says that they will justify any defamatory comments made
in a document to be published, or during a proposed broadcast or in a proposed article, an injunction will be refused. This
is, in essence, because of the importance attached to the right of free speech. The situation is somewhat different where
clear issues of confidentiality and privacy are involved and if it can be shown that there is threatened publication of
private or confidential information.
Kind regards
Susan
Susan Barty
Partner
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
www. law-now.com
Proud to support Special Olympics as our Charity Partner who provide year-round sports training and competition for children and adults with learning
disabilities: transforming lives through sport.
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registration number OC310335. It is a body corporate
which uses the word "partner" to refer to a member, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. It is authorised and regulated by
the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales with SRA number 423370. A list of members and their professional qualifications is open to
inspection at the registered office, Mitre House, 160 Aldersgate Street, London EC1A 4DD. Members are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers. VAT
registration number: 974 899 925. Further information about the firm can be found at www.cms-cmck.com
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP is a member of CMS, the organisation of European law firms. Further information can be found at www.cmslegal.com
The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including
any attachments) from your system. Notice: the firm does not accept service by e-mail of court proceedings, other processes or formal notices of any kind
without specific prior written agreement.
POL00190619
POL00190619
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must
not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error, please
contact the sender and then delete this email from your system.
ROYAL MAIL GROUP LIMITED registered in England and Wales at 100 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0HQ with
the registered company number 04138203
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named recipient, you must
not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have received this in error, please
contact the sender and then delete this email from your system.
ROYAL MAIL GROUP LIMITED registered in England and Wales at 100 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0HQ with
the registered company number 04138203