Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 643 (QB) (06 April 2016)

Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 643 (QB) (06 April 2016)

The defendant failed to provide convincing, specific evidence that the crime or privilege exemptions applied to all or any of the claimants' personal data, and failed to show that compliance would be disproportionate or abusive. The SAR was valid, and the court's discretion should be exercised in favour of ordering compliance with s 7 DPA.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 643
Parties
Claimant: Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev; Claimant: Evgeniya Viktorovna Gurieva; Defendant: Community Safety Development (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Claim Under Data Protection Act 1998 (subject Access Request) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Subject Access Request, Legal Professional Privilege, Crime Exemption, Abuse of Process, Proportionality, Litigation Privilege
Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure Subject Access Request Legal Professional Privilege Crime Exemption Abuse of Process Proportionality +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev

Claimant

Evgeniya Viktorovna Gurieva

Claimant

Community Safety Development (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim Under Data Protection Act 1998 (subject Access Request) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants made a valid subject access request (SAR) under s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to rely on the crime exemption (s 29 DPA) or privilege exemption (Schedule 7, para 10 DPA) to refuse compliance
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order compliance with the SAR under s 7(9) DPA, considering proportionality and alleged abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide convincing, specific evidence that the crime or privilege exemptions applied to all or any of the claimants' personal data, and failed to show that compliance would be disproportionate or abusive. The SAR was valid, and the court's discretion should be exercised in favour of ordering compliance with s 7 DPA.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant failed to comply with its subject access duties under s 7 DPA
  • Order requiring the defendant to comply with the SAR, subject to any properly asserted exemptions