Rudd v Bridle & Anor (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 893 (QB) (10 April 2019)

Rudd v Bridle & Anor (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 893 (QB) (10 April 2019)

The court determined that the main issues for trial were identification of the data controller, applicability of exemptions to subject access, adequacy of compliance with SARs, entitlement to orders under s 10, and entitlement to compensation under s 13. The court found that only issues clearly raised in the statements of case could be tried, and that the claimant had not pleaded or evidenced distress causally linked to any contravention, nor sufficiently pleaded unwarranted processing or inaccuracy for s 14 remedies. The court applied the relevant DPA definitions, exemptions, and procedural requirements, and concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the full scope of remedies sought.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 893
Parties
Claimant: Dr Robin Rudd; First Defendant: John Bridle; Second Defendant: J&S Bridle Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Act Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim partially succeeds; limited orders granted.
Legal Topics
Subject Access Requests, Data Controller Identification, Exemptions Under DPA, Compensation for Distress, Unwarranted Processing
Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure Subject Access Requests Data Controller Identification Exemptions Under DPA Compensation for Distress Unwarranted 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 9 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Robin Rudd

Claimant

John Bridle

First Defendant

J&S Bridle Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Act Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which defendant was the data controller for the claimant's personal data?
  2. 2 Are the claimant's personal data exempt from subject access under privilege, journalism, or regulatory activity exemptions?
  3. 3 Did the defendants comply with their duties under DPA s 7 regarding subject access requests?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the main issues for trial were identification of the data controller, applicability of exemptions to subject access, adequacy of compliance with SARs, entitlement to orders under s 10, and entitlement to compensation under s 13. The court found that only issues clearly raised in the statements of case could be tried, and that the claimant had not pleaded or evidenced distress causally linked to any contravention, nor sufficiently pleaded unwarranted processing or inaccuracy for s 14 remedies. The court applied the relevant DPA definitions, exemptions, and procedural requirements, and concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the full scope of remedies sought.

Court Disposition

Claim partially succeeds; limited orders granted.

Orders

  • Defendants required to provide further information in compliance with SARs to the extent not exempt under privilege.
  • No order for cessation of processing under s 10 as unwarranted distress not pleaded or proved.