Antony Sava v Leather Inside Out & Ors

Antony Sava v Leather Inside Out & Ors

The claim against the natural Defendants (Second, Third, and Fourth) was struck out because the Particulars of Claim did not allege any facts showing they acted as data controllers in their personal capacity, rather than as agents for the First Defendant. There was no factual basis to support a claim that they determined the purposes and means of processing the claimant's data outside their roles as agents of the CIO. The law does not provide blanket immunity to officers, but the pleaded case was insufficient and not curable by amendment.

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
Civil / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim against the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants struck out; summary judgment application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Data Controllers Under UK GDPR, Subject Access Requests (sar), Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Agency and Liability of Officers/trustees
Data Protection Civil Procedure Data Controllers Under UK GDPR Subject Access Requests (sar) Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Agency and Liability of Officers/trustees

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 16 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

Civil / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the natural Defendants (Second, Third, and Fourth) was struck out because the Particulars of Claim did not allege any facts showing they acted as data controllers in their personal capacity, rather than as agents for the First Defendant. There was no factual basis to support a claim that they determined the purposes and means of processing the claimant's data outside their roles as agents of the CIO. The law does not provide blanket immunity to officers, but the pleaded case was insufficient and not curable by amendment.

Court Disposition

Claim against the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants struck out; summary judgment application dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim against the Third Defendant struck out of the court's own motion.
  • Application for summary judgment dismissed.