K, R (on the application of) v Halton Borough Council [2007] EWHC 2485 (Admin) (16 October 2007)

K, R (on the application of) v Halton Borough Council [2007] EWHC 2485 (Admin) (16 October 2007)

The defendant council was bound by a legitimate expectation, arising from a clear and unconditional promise, to destroy the claimant's son's file by 25 June 2002. The council failed to justify its departure from this promise, did not conduct a proper balancing exercise between public interest and the claimant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2485 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: K; Defendant: Halton Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Retention and Destruction of Records, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Data Protection Act 1998, Child Protection Records, Public Law Promises
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Data Protection Law Legitimate Expectation Retention and Destruction of Records Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Data Protection Act 1998 Child Protection Records +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Claimant

Halton Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant council was bound by a legitimate expectation to destroy the claimant's son's social services file by a specified date
  2. 2 Whether the continued retention of the file constituted an unjustified interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights under the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the retention of the file was compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant council was bound by a legitimate expectation, arising from a clear and unconditional promise, to destroy the claimant's son's file by 25 June 2002. The council failed to justify its departure from this promise, did not conduct a proper balancing exercise between public interest and the claimant's rights, and the continued retention of the file constituted an unjustified interference with Article 8 ECHR rights. The council's actions also failed to comply with the necessity principle under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The defendant council is ordered to destroy the relevant file within 14 days of the order.
  • The defendant council is to pay the claimant's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.