Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd

Gurieva & Anor v Community Safety Development (UK) Ltd

The claimants made a valid subject access request under s 7 DPA. The defendant failed to establish, with proper evidence, that the crime exemption or privilege exemption applied to all the personal data held. The defendant's refusal to comply was unjustified and disproportionate. There was no abuse of process. The court exercised its discretion to order compliance with the SAR.

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, Discretionary Relief
Data Protection Civil Procedure Subject Access Request Legal Professional Privilege Crime Exemption Abuse of Process Discretionary Relief

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 can rely on the crime exemption under s 29(1) DPA to withhold personal data
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can rely on the privilege exemption (Schedule 7, paragraph 10 DPA) to withhold personal data

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants made a valid subject access request under s 7 DPA. The defendant failed to establish, with proper evidence, that the crime exemption or privilege exemption applied to all the personal data held. The defendant's refusal to comply was unjustified and disproportionate. There was no abuse of process. The court exercised its discretion to order compliance with the SAR.

Court Disposition

claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendant failed to comply with the claimants' subject access request under s 7 DPA
  • Order that the defendant comply with the SAR, subject to proper consideration of any applicable exemptions