Disclosure of risk of self harm made no claim
The claimant complained that the respondent support group had disclosed to his doctor that fact that they had assessed him as being at significant risk of suicide or other substantial self-harm, and that it was at that time unable to provide Mr Scott with the services he sought from the LGBT Foundation because of Mr Scott’s ongoing drug use. The foundation now requested that the claim be struck out.
Held: The claim was struck out:
As to the basic character of data protection, the verbal disclosure itself did not constitute the processing of personal data.
As to the disclosure, it had been necessary in order to protect the Scott’s vital interests, and though it was indeed sensitive personal data.
As to the claim for breach of confidences, this failed: ‘ the duty of confidence which was undoubtedly owed to Mr Scott had a qualifier to confidentiality, or ‘carve out’, which permitted the very limited Disclosure to his GP.’ He had signed a form permitting just such a disclosure, and had provided his doctor’s details.
‘LGBT Foundation is not a hybrid public authority. The evidence establishes that it seeks to deliver services of public benefit and it receives some public funding, but such factors are insufficient to make an entity a public authority. Of importance is that LGBT Foundation has no statutory powers, duties or functions (not even matters being delegated to it by true public authorities), and is not in any way ‘governmental’. It is simply a charity which, like many such bodies, attracts public funding in addition to funds from other sources. The fact that it helps members of the public on health issues takes matters no further.’
Saini J
[2020] EWHC 483 (QB)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Data Protection Act 2018
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – Global Asset Capital, Inc and Another v Aabar Block Sarl and Others CA 1-Feb-2017
Appeal against refusal of summary judgment. The court set out the applicable principles concerning strike out and summary judgment: ‘(1) The court must consider whether the case of the respondent to the application has a realistic as opposed to . .
Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
Cited – Regina (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd QBD 11-Apr-2002
The owners of private mental hospital sought to change the character of one of its wards. A patient sought leave to challenge that change by judicial review, arguing that the hospital served a public function.
Held: Although the contracting . .
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – YL v Birmingham City Council and Others HL 20-Jun-2007
The House was asked whether a private care home when providing accommodation and care to a resident under arrangements with a local authority the 1948 Act, is performing ‘functions of a public nature’ for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human . .
Cited – Fearn and Others v The Board of Trustees of The Tate Gallery ChD 12-Feb-2019
The claimant owners of glass walled apartments complained that the erection of a new walkway by the defendant which gave members of the public views into the claimants’ living spaces was a nuisance and an infringement of their human rights to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Human Rights
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.648934
