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 claimants made a valid subject access request. The defendant failed to prove, by convincing evidence, that the crime or privilege exemptions applied to all or any of the personal data held. The defendant's arguments on proportionality and abuse of process were not substantiated. The court exercised its discretion to order compliance with the SAR, requiring the defendant to review and disclose non-exempt personal data and provide reasoned assertions for any exemptions claimed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 643 (QB)
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 4 Authorities cited 15 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 (Sch 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 claimants made a valid subject access request. The defendant failed to prove, by convincing evidence, that the crime or privilege exemptions applied to all or any of the personal data held. The defendant's arguments on proportionality and abuse of process were not substantiated. The court exercised its discretion to order compliance with the SAR, requiring the defendant to review and disclose non-exempt personal data and provide reasoned assertions for any exemptions claimed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant failed to comply with the claimants' subject access request under s 7 DPA
  • Order requiring the defendant to comply with the SAR, disclosing non-exempt personal data and providing reasons for any exemptions relied upon