The claimant sought disclosure under the 1998 Act by the defendant of records held by them. The respondent said that the information they held did not amount to data under the Act.
Held: The information was contained in different formats, on paper, electronically and on CD, but was then brought together in a risk assessment. That compilation meant that it was personal data within by the Act. Processing could be part manual and part automatic. Once the data was processed it did not matter whether the original data was or was not in a ‘relevant filing system’. However the Act did not provide for general damages to flow from unfair processing.
Rimer J
[2006] EWHC 321 (Ch)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Mar-2002
The applicant sought damages for the defendant having infringed her privacy in several ways, including under the 1998 Act. The defendant argued that she had invited publicity and had misled the public as to her drug problem. A photograch had been . .
See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 20-Feb-2004
. .
See Also – Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd ChD 9-Nov-2004
The claimant doctor had sought assistance from the defendant, and having been refused it had sought disclosure of its records about him. He had been refused access under the 1998 Act, and now sought access under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Cited by:
Appeal from – Johnson v The Medical Defence Union CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimant asserted that the 1998 Act created rights between the parties that are in substance though not in form of a contractual nature; and rights to compensation for infringement of those primary rights of a nature that did not previously . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.238892