cearta.ie – Page 3 – the Irish for rights

The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 [the GDPR]) provides both for public enforcement by data protection authorities and for private enforcement by any person who has suffered damage as a result of an infringement of the Regulation (on this inter-connection, see Johanna Chamberlain & Jane Reichel “The Relationship Between Damages and Administrative Fines in the EU General Data Protection Regulation” 89 Mississippi Law Journal (forthcoming 2020; SSRN)). As to private enforcement by means of damages claims, Article 82(1) GDPR provides that “[a]ny person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered”. CMS legal are tracking fines levied by data protection authorities in the EU – they record that, so far, 186 fines have been levied, for a total of almost €460m (the EDPB gives different numbers (pdf, pp33-34), discussed here). However, there is as yet no equivalent tracker for compensation claims, in part because there have been very few. So far as I can find, there have been eight judgments considering substantive claims for damages pursuant to Article 82 (though there have been other cases in which such compensation was claimed but the substantive issue was not reached).…

The legal perils of hot coffee – from the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg

20 January, 2020

| No Comments

| Tort

Without my first cup of coffee, I don’t function in the mornings. So, it’s not a surprise that some recent headlines about coffee caught my eye: Woman who was scalded when coffee spilled in her lap at drive-throughr awarded €30k damages (The Independent); Woman awarded €30,000 after takeaway coffee spill causes burns (The Irish Times); Woman (29) awarded €30k after she was scalded by coffee spill at McDonald’s drive-thru (The Journal.ie); Unable to have ‘intimate relations’ for 8 months: Woman, 29, receives €30k award after coffee spill (The Examiner); €30,000 for woman who could not have sex after McDonald’s scald horror (The Herald). All of the reports begin in the same way:

A 29-year-old woman, whose thighs and genitals were scalded when coffee was spilled in her lap at a McDonald’s drive-through takeaway in Clondalkin, Co Dublin, has been awarded €30,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

Ciara Corboy, of Oatfield Avenue, Clondalkin, told Judge Francis Comerford that in November 2017 while being handed a large Americano at the drive-through restaurant at The Mill Shopping Centre, Clondalkin, a lid that had not been properly secured to the cup had come off causing her to be scalded in her thighs, groin and private parts.

…

The Irish Government’s proposed Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill has a surprising omission

11 January, 202013 January, 2020

| 1 Comment

| Cyberlaw

Last October and November, I sketched the evolution of the government’s proposals for a digital safety commissioner. Following a consultation process last Spring, and missing the deadline of the end of the year by a few weeks, they have published their proposals for the general scheme of the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill. In its current form, important elements are dangerously vague, and there is an unpardonable oversight in the drafting – like the famous mint, there is a hole in the middle of the Bill; unlike the mint, the hole isn’t meant to be there; and I will return to this point in the last paragraph below.

The Irish proposal is the newest in a long line of recent initiatives, at state and international level, that seek to regulate online content in various ways. For example, the EU has revised the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMS II) to regulate the audiovisual sector, it is promoting a code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online, and it has controversially expanded the reach of copyright online. The UK has proposed widespread regulation of online harms, the new government has promised to develop legislation to improve internet safety for all, and a draft Online Harm Reduction Bill is to be introduced as a Private Members Bill in the House of Lords.…

Damages for Data Protection Breaches – II – Why Murphy v Callinan is wrong

13 December, 201916 December, 2020

| 4 Comments

| Data Protection

In my previous post in this series, I argued (yet again) that Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137 (14 March 2013) was wrongly decided. It precludes a claim for damages for distress for breach of data protection rights, pursuant to section 7 of the Data Protection Act, 1988 (also here) [hereafter: section 7 DPA88]. Building on a case in which the Workplace Relations Commission ordered a company, whose CEO hacked into an employee’s phone and downloaded intimate photos of her from it, to pay her a total of €94,708 damages, I argued that, if the surreptitious download had occurred outside an employment relationship, the complainant should be able to recover damages for distress for breach of her data protection rights, pursuant to section 7 DPA88. However, when the Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to depart from Collins, it did not take it. Instead, in Murphy v Callinan [2018] IESC 59 (30 November 2018) Baker J (Clarke CJ and Dunne J concurring) approved and applied Collins. In my previous post, I argued that Collins was wrong as a matter of domestic law, and of European law, and that Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2016] QB 1003, [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) and Case C–362/14 Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650; CJEU, 6 October 2015) illustrated the EU law points and undercut the reasoning in Collins.…

Man wins ‘fleeting defamation’ case and is awarded €500 – should the law of defamation really concern itself with such a trifle?

12 December, 20194 March, 2020

| No Comments

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation

The latin maxim “de minimis non curat lex” is usually translated as “the law does not concern itself with trifles”, meaning the courts will not consider trifling matters. Christmas may be the time for trifles (like the Christmas trifle pictured left), but the Courts are not the place for them. I was reminded of the maxim today when I read the headline that a “Man wins ‘fleeting defamation’ case against Luas and is awarded €500“. The judge is reported (here and here) to have found that:

there was a “fleeting defamation” … but, “having regard to the fact it was almost immediately expunged”, he could not find any lasting damage to his reputation or good name. In the circumstances, he awarded nominal damages of €500 [plus costs] … There was a “momentary defamation” which was almost immediately corrected such that people in the vicinity could not have reasonably formed any lasting adverse opinion of the plaintiff, …

Given the trifling sum of nominal damages, the plaintiff is lucky to have received his costs. Even more so, in my view, is he lucky to have been successful at all. I don’t think that the law of defamation should be concerned with such trifles.…

Damages for Data Protection Breaches – I – Why Collins v FBD Insurance is wrong (again)

11 December, 201913 December, 2019

| 3 Comments

| Data Protection

A story in the newspapers this morning has made me think once again about some of the weaknesses in Irish law relating to damages for data protection infringements. The Workplace Relations Commission [WRC] has ordered a company, whose CEO hacked into an employee’s phone and downloaded intimate photos of her from it, to pay her a total of €94,708 damages (see, eg, Breaking News | Irish Independent | Irish Sun | Irish Times | TheJournal.ie). She had plugged her phone into his laptop to charge it, and he downloaded the images while she was in the bathroom. The award of €94,708 includes €65,000 for persistent sexual harassment, and €25,000 for unfair dismissal. The case is WRC Adjudication ADJ-00020222 An International Sales and Marketing Executive v A Fashion Company (25 November 2019); the report explains that the download occurred in October 2017, and that the complainant became aware of this in March 2018. She found herself in a terrible situation, but at least she was able to get some compensation for breaches of various pieces of workplace legislation. And the WRC Adjudication Officer ordered the respondent “to immediately destroy all photographs or images that depict the complainant or belong to her”.…

Fair Use in South Africa; and the road not taken in Irish and Australian copyright reforms

3 December, 201925 September, 2020

| No Comments

| Copyright, CRC12 / CRC13, Fair use

Copyright reform is under consideration in many jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. It has just been completed in the EU. In Ireland, the long-awaited Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Law Provisions Act 2019 (here and here) was signed by the President on 26 June 2019 last; in an unexplained delay, it took until 26 November 2019 for the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Heather Humphries, to specify 2 December 2019 as the day on which most of the Act – eventually – came into force. In a future post, I will blog about the important changes made by the Act; in this post, I want to mention a road not taken. In May 2011, the Government established a Copyright Review Committee (CRC) to identify any areas of Irish copyright legislation that might create barriers to innovation and to make recommendations to resolve any problems identified.

In particular, one of the terms of reference required the CRC to “examine the US style ‘fair use’ doctrine to see if it would be appropriate in an Irish/EU context”. It was a controversial topic, with powerful views expressed both for and against the exception.…

The Government’s plans for a digital safety commissioner proceed apace

21 November, 2019

| 1 Comment

| Cyberlaw, Cyberlaw

In my earlier post (republished here) on the demise of the UK’s current age-verification plans for online porn – and what that might mean for Ireland’s proposed Digital Safety Commissioner, I noted that long-standing Irish Government policy is to establish such a Commissioner, and that the current timetable is that it is intended to bring forward the necessary legislation before the end of the year. Meanwhile, two Private Members Bills, the Digital Safety Commissioner Bill 2017 and the Children’s Digital Protection Bill 2018, are currently before the Oireachtas.

It seems that Government policy in this regard proceeds apace. In his evidence to the International Grand Committee on Disinformation and ‘Fake News’ (hosted in the Seanad Chamber by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment) on Thursday, 7 November 2019, last, the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Richard Bruton TD, said:

The regulation of harmful online content … is being pursued by my Department. … The approach we are taking to online safety, for which I am directly responsible, is not dissimilar to that being taken in Australia. We propose to define harmful content, require companies to have a code of practice and put an online safety commissioner in place to oversee the delivery of those codes of practice.

…