Permission to appeal decisions
16 February 2018
CG (AP) (Appellant) v Facebook Ireland Ltd and another (Respondents) (Northern Ireland) - UKSC 2016/0202
Permission to appeal has been refused in this case, in which the issue was the relationship between the 'safe habour' provision under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations and the liabilities of data controllers under the Data Protection Act 1998.
The Appellant was convicted of a number of sex offences on 27 March 2007. A sentence of 10 years imprisonment with 5 of those years being on licence was imposed. At the time of his conviction a prominent newspaper in Northern Ireland produced an article about CG's offences and a photograph of CG. This matter centres around Facebook profile pages that were set up by users, dedicated to the identification of sex offenders, in which CG was identified and numerous comments were posted. Some of the comments were abusive, violent and referred to where CG may be living.
Following contact from CG's solicitors alleging defamation Facebook eventually removed all postings in relation to CG. The Appellant commenced proceedings claiming misuse of private information, breach of section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and harassment under the Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 against Facebook and the creator of the profile page on 28 May 2013 and claimed interim relief.
Permission to appeal was refused on the ground that the application did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time. Furthermore, new legislation makes an appeal academic.
That judgment that the permission to appeal application was lodged in relation to can be read via the following link.
Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v E. Buyer UK Ltd & Citibank NA (Appellant) - UKSC 2017/0173
Permission to appeal has been refused in this case, in which the issue was whether a fully particularised plea of dishonesty is required in a statement of case when HMRC alleges a taxpayer's knowledge of a VAT fraud for the purposes of denying deductions of input tax pursuant to the Kittel test.
HMRC alleges that both Citibank and E Buyer participated in missing-trader frauds. In its statements of case, HMRC alleged that there was an overall scheme involving an orchestrated and contrived series of transactions to defraud HMRC; the appellants' transactions formed part of that overall scheme; and they knew or ought to have known that that was the case. Appeals were brought by the appellants against HMRC's refusal to allow the appellants to make deductions of input tax in respect of the relevant transactions. In Citi's case, the First-tier Tribunal ruled that making an allegation of actual knowledge of a missing trader fraud required a plea of dishonesty. In E Buyer's case, the First-tier Tribunal rejected E Buyer's argument that the allegations against it amounted to an allegation of dishonesty and that further particulars of the alleged dishonesty were required. The Upper Tribunal upheld the decision in Citi's case and reversed the decision in E Buyer's case, directing that CPR-style standard disclosure be given. On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed the finding of the Upper Tribunal.
Permission to appeal was refused on the ground that the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.
That judgment that the permission to appeal application was lodged in relation to can be read via the following link.