CG v Facebook Ireland Limited and McCloskey (Joseph)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] NICA 54 |
| Year | 2016 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 21 December 2016 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2016] NICA 54
Ref:
MOR10142
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
21/12/2016
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
BETWEEN:
CG
Plaintiff/Respondent and Cross-Appellant;
-and-
FACEBOOK IRELAND LIMITED
And
JOSEPH McCLOSKEY
Defendants/Appellants and Respondents to Cross Appeal.
________
Before: Morgan LCJ Gillen LJ and Weatherup LJ
_______
MORGAN LCJ (giving the judgment of the court)
[1] This case is primarily concerned with the liability in damages of information
society services, in this case Facebook, for misuse of private information as a result of
postings on their sites by third parties. The first and second named appellants,
Facebook Ireland Ltd and Joseph McCloskey, hereinafter respectively referred to as
“Facebook” and “McCloskey”, appeal from an Order of Stephens J filed on 4 March
2015 whereby he held Facebook liable to the respondent for misuse of private
information in respect of three profile pages on its social network together with the
comments generated by those pages and McCloskey liable for unlawful harassment
in respect of the first of those profile pages and comments. He awarded damages in
each case. He further made an order that the first appellant should terminate the
Facebook profile page "Keeping Our Kids Safe from Predators 2" (“Predators 2”) and
prohibited McCloskey from harassing, pestering or molesting the respondent
2
whether by publishing, distributing or transmitting any information relating to or on
the website Facebook.com or otherwise howsoever.
[2] The respondent cross appeals on the basis that Facebook should be held liable
in respect of the three profile pages and comments on the basis that by its pursuit of
economic activity within the United Kingdom by operation of the Facebook social
network and through the operation of an office, branch and/or subsidiary it is a data
controller under section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”) in respect
of personal data and sensitive personal data processed on the Facebook social
network and is in breach of the 1998 Act. McCloskey did not pursue his appeal and
accordingly it is dismissed. Both Facebook and the respondent lodged appeals
against the level of damages but at the hearing neither pursued that issue. Mr White
QC appeared with Mr Hopkins for Facebook and Mr Tomlinson QC appeared with
Mr Girvan for the respondent. We are grateful to all counsel for their helpful oral
and written submissions.
Facebook
[3] The corporate structure within which Facebook was established is set out at
paragraph 90 of the judgment at first instance:
(a) Facebook Ireland Limited is a private limited company incorporated in the
Republic of Ireland.
(b) Facebook Ireland Limited is wholly owned by Facebook Ireland Holdings
which is an unlimited company and does not file accounts. It is not possible
to establish from publicly available information details of its trading and
intergroup transactions.
(c) Facebook Ireland Holdings is owned by Facebook International Holdings II
(99%) which is registered in Ireland and by Facebook Cayman Holdings
Limited III (1%) which is registered in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman
Islands do not levy corporation tax.
(d) In 2012 Facebook Ireland Limited paid €770.6m to Facebook Ireland Holdings
for the right and licence to utilise the Facebook platform.
(e) Facebook Ireland Limited is the data controller with respect to the personal
data of users outside the US and Canada.
(f) Facebook UK Limited is a private limited company incorporated in the UK. It
is wholly owned by Facebook Global Holdings II LLC. It derives all of its
income from providing marketing support services to Facebook Ireland
Limited. It does not operate, host or control the Facebook service. It has
offices in the United Kingdom.
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
NT 1 and another v Google LLC (Information Commissioner intervening)
...privacy rights of convicted persons and the public policy justifications for retaining biometric data. (4) In CG v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NICA 54 [2017] EMLR 12 [44] the NICA referred to T and agreed that with the passage of time the protection of an offender by prohibiting the disclos......
-
EC v Sunday Newspapers Limited
...plaintiff’s claim is based on intrusion. As was recognised by the Court of Appeal in CG v Facebook Ireland Limited and Joseph McCloskey [2016] NICA 54: “The tort protects both confidentiality and intrusion.” (My underlining) In its judgment the Court of Appeal went on to say that: “[42] The......
-
Townsend (Callum) v Google Inc. and Google UK Limited
...private life will usually be the point at which it becomes “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. In CG v Facebook [2016] NICA 54 at paragraph [43] Morgan LCJ giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated that: “We agree that with the passage of time the protection of a......
-
NGK v GOOGLE INC and GOOGLE UK LIMITED
...private life will usually be the point at which it becomes “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. In CG v Facebook [2016] NICA 54 at paragraph [43] Morgan LCJ giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated that: 11 “We agree that with the passage of time the protection o......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Defamation Online - Defamation, Intermediary Liability and the Threat of Data Protection Law
...ICO, ‘Social Networking and Online Forums: When does the DPA Apply?’ (Version 1.1 20140226) [31]. 65 CG v Facebook Ireland and McCloskey [2016] NICA 54 [75]. 66 Adam Mosseri, ‘News Feed Ranking in hree Minutes Flat’ (About Facebook, 22 May 2018) accessed 12 April 2020. Defamation Online 95 ......