Editorial

Air travel and the mobile phone

Ironically, many readers of Communications Law will likely choose to sit in the quiet coach when travelling by train. Air travel has until now also offered a respite from enslavement to the mobile phone. However, as Ruwantissa Abeyratne of the International Civil Aviation Organisation points out, 2007 could well be the year when the use of personal mobile phones within aircraft becomes legal. Although the liberty to conduct telephone conversations at 30,000 feet is clearly dependent on developments in technology, the possibility also throws up a variety of regulatory and legal issues in respect to both aviation and telecommunications, especially in relation to international travel. Applicable international conventions have not been developed with the relevant issues in mind, and a new international regulatory framework is required.

Zhongdong Niu of Napier University argues that in spite of the fact that in the context of media ownership restrictions the UK government’s policy has recently been to deregulate, the remedies based approach taken by the competition authorities on a case by case basis is developing into a different form of media regulation. In examining media merger cases considered by the competition authorities, trends may be identified which may influence decisions made in respect of current and future media mergers.

In October 2005 new provisions were introduced into Practice Direction 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of disclosure of electronic documents following the Cresswell Report. Justin Byrne of Eversheds considers the implications of the changes and provides practical advice on the preservation and collection, processing, review and disclosure of electronic documents.

Meanwhile, the approach of the UK courts to issues relating to ‘privacy’ is often said to be developing at some pace. New decisions are frequently hailed as ‘important’ or ‘ground breaking’. The marathon litigation between Douglas/OK and Hello! has at last resulted in a House of Lords decision. However, the case is certainly not the first of its type to be the subject of litigation. In 1917 Swinfen Eady LJ delivered the leading speech in the Court of Appeal judgment in Sports and General Press Agency v Our Dogs Publishing. In 1915 the Ladies Kennel Club had sold exclusive rights to take and publish photographs of a dog show held in the Royal Botanical Gardens to the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, another professional photographer (a Mr Baskerville!) attended the show and photographed the spectacle, selling his pictures to the defendants. The Court of Appeal refused to grant an injunction against publication because the Ladies Kennel Club had not sought to claim or enforce any exclusive rights in respect of photography, which they could have achieved by expressly prohibiting those who attended at the show from using cameras.

Likewise, although the decision of the Court of Appeal in McKennitt v Ash has been described as extending the law of confidence in the direction of a right of privacy, Brian Pillans of Glasgow Caledonian University argues that there is little in the judgments that could be described as ‘ground breaking’ and that the claims of its impact on tabloid excess may be exaggerated.