Smeaton v Equifax Plc

Smeaton v Equifax Plc

Equifax did not breach its statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 as it took reasonable steps to ensure data accuracy by relying on authoritative sources and updating records upon notification. There is no co-extensive duty of care in tort imposed on Equifax in these circumstances. Even if there had been a breach, the losses claimed by Mr Smeaton were not caused by the bankruptcy entry alone, and any further losses were too remote to be recoverable.

Parties
Respondent: Keith Smeaton; Appellant: Equifax plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Data Accuracy Obligations of Credit Reference Agencies, Duty of Care in Tort for Data Controllers, Causation and Remoteness of Damage, Statutory Interpretation of Data Protection Act 1998, Bankruptcy Order Rescission and Notification Procedures

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Smeaton

Respondent

Equifax plc

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Equifax breached its duties under the Data Protection Act 1998 by failing to ensure the accuracy of Mr Smeaton's credit data
  2. 2 Whether Equifax owed a co-extensive duty of care in tort to Mr Smeaton
  3. 3 Whether any breach by Equifax caused Mr Smeaton or Ability Records to be unable to raise finance in or after mid-2006

Ratio Decidendi

Equifax did not breach its statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 as it took reasonable steps to ensure data accuracy by relying on authoritative sources and updating records upon notification. There is no co-extensive duty of care in tort imposed on Equifax in these circumstances. Even if there had been a breach, the losses claimed by Mr Smeaton were not caused by the bankruptcy entry alone, and any further losses were too remote to be recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed