Search for: "Feeney v. Dell Inc. " Results 1 - 12 of 12
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2015, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal decision in Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311(27 March 2015) (Dyson MR and Sharp LJ in a joint judgment; McFarlane LJ concurring), affirming the judgment of Tugendhat J (at[2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)), is a very important decision on damages for invasion of privacy, and it raises significant questions about the correctness of Feeney J’s reasoning in the earlier Irish case of Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137… [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 11:51 am
by Deepak Gupta Just before the holiday weekend, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in Feeney v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 4:11 pm by INFORRM
In the same way that Collins is undermined by the subequent decisions in 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), so Murphy is undermined by the subsequent decisions in Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 October 2019) and Case… [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
In Collins v FBD Insurance plc [2013] IEHC 137 (14 March 2013), Feeney J held that this did not permit a claim for general damages for distress. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
In Google Inc v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) [105], the Court of Appeal held that, having regard to Article 23, “compensation would be recoverable under section 13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of anyof the requirements” of the Data Protection Acts (emphasis in original). [read post]