Savva v Leather Inside Out & Ors [2024] EWHC 2867 (KB) (18 November 2024)

Savva v Leather Inside Out & Ors [2024] EWHC 2867 (KB) (18 November 2024)

The claim against the natural Defendants (Second, Third, Fourth) was struck out because the Particulars of Claim did not allege any factual basis for them acting as data controllers in their personal capacity, rather than as agents for the First Defendant. There is no legal bar to individuals being controllers, but the pleaded facts did not support such a claim, nor was there reason to believe the defect could be cured by amendment.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2867 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Antony Savva; First Defendant: Leather Inside Out; Second Defendant: Victoria Johns; Third Defendant: Anat McKenzie; Fourth Defendant: Nicole Riedweg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Strike Out / Summary Judgment Application in Civil Claim (data Protection) / High Court (king's Bench Division) Application Hearing
Outcome
Application for strike out granted; claims against Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants struck out. Application for summary judgment dismissed as academic.
Legal Topics
Data Controllers Under UK GDPR, Subject Access Requests (dsars), Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Agency and Liability of Officers/trustees, Personal Data Processing
Data Protection Civil Procedure Data Controllers Under UK GDPR Subject Access Requests (dsars) Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Agency and Liability of Officers/trustees Personal Data Processing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony Savva

Claimant

Leather Inside Out

First Defendant

Victoria Johns

Second Defendant

Anat McKenzie

Third Defendant

Nicole Riedweg

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out / Summary Judgment Application in Civil Claim (data Protection) / High Court (king's Bench Division) Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether only the First Defendant (organisation) could be a data controller under Article 15 UK GDPR
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded case disclosed sufficient factual basis for the Second or Fourth Defendant to be data controllers

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the natural Defendants (Second, Third, Fourth) was struck out because the Particulars of Claim did not allege any factual basis for them acting as data controllers in their personal capacity, rather than as agents for the First Defendant. There is no legal bar to individuals being controllers, but the pleaded facts did not support such a claim, nor was there reason to believe the defect could be cured by amendment.

Court Disposition

Application for strike out granted; claims against Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants struck out. Application for summary judgment dismissed as academic.

Orders

  • Claim against Second Defendant struck out
  • Claim against Third Defendant struck out (of court's own motion)