Equifax, a credit reference agency, appealed an enforcement notice relating to its provision to those making searches, of ‘third party information’ relating not to the subject of the search, the applicant for credit, but to persons who had lived at the same address as the applicant for credit. The enforcement notice prohibited that supply. One ground of appeal was based on section 28(4) of the Act exempting data from the Registrar’s powers ‘in any case in which [their exercise] would be likely to prejudice’ either the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Section 28(1) exempted data ‘in any case in which [disclosure] would be likely to prejudice’ either the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In relation to the words ‘in any case’ the Registrar argued, and the Tribunal accepted, that the words meant ‘in any particular case’. The agency argued and the Tribunal accepted that one of the functions of a credit reference agency is the prevention of crime, because persons applying for credit may commit fraud and the searches performed by the credit reference agency may help to prevent or detect fraud. The agency further argued that the exercise by the Registrar of his powers would prejudice this because were searches to be restricted in the manner required by the Registrar ‘some cases of fraud or suspected fraud might not be exposed.’
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘the vast majority of applicants for credit were not fraudulent’ and that criminals formed only ‘a tiny proportion of applicants for credit.’ ‘ . . Personal data are exempt from the provisions referred to ‘in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice’ the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension of offenders. It seems to us that the words taken as a whole – ‘in any case in which the application of those provisions to the data’ – make it plain that the exemption applies only in particular cases where we can talk about ‘the data,’ that is to say the personal data to which we may or may not apply the provisions.’
Judges:
Aubrey L. Diamond (Deputy Chairman), Alex Lawrence and Victor Ross
Citations:
DA/90 25/49/7, [1991] UKIT DA90 – 25497
Links:
Statutes:
Data Protection Act 1984 28(1) 28(4)
Information
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229983
