Robin Simon Graham Makin (formerly known as X) v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor

Robin Simon Graham Makin (formerly known as X) v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor

Both defendants were entitled to withhold all of the claimant’s personal data under the judicial exemption in the DPA 2018, as all relevant data was processed in a judicial capacity. The court had power to consider closed material in the absence of the claimant. The second defendant’s response to the SAR was not proven to be out of time, and any delay was trivial and did not warrant relief.

Parties
Claimant: Robin Simon Graham Makin; First Defendant: The Transcription Agency LLP; Second Defendant: Master Jennifer James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Data Protection / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Subject Access Requests, Judicial Exemption, Data Controller Vs Processor, Special Category Data, Third Party Data Exemption, Procedural Fairness
Data Protection Judicial Independence Civil Procedure Subject Access Requests Judicial Exemption Data Controller Vs Processor Special Category Data Third Party Data Exemption +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Simon Graham Makin

Claimant

The Transcription Agency LLP

First Defendant

Master Jennifer James

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Data Protection / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were entitled to withhold the claimant’s personal data under the judicial exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018
  2. 2 Whether the court could consider withheld material in closed session
  3. 3 Whether the withheld data in fact fell within the judicial exemption

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants were entitled to withhold all of the claimant’s personal data under the judicial exemption in the DPA 2018, as all relevant data was processed in a judicial capacity. The court had power to consider closed material in the absence of the claimant. The second defendant’s response to the SAR was not proven to be out of time, and any delay was trivial and did not warrant relief.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed