K, R (on the application of) v Halton Borough Council

K, R (on the application of) v Halton Borough Council

The Council was bound by a specific and unconditional promise to destroy the file by 25 June 2002, creating a legitimate expectation. The Council failed to justify its departure from that promise by reference to any particular circumstances or balancing exercise. Continued retention and disclosure of the file constituted an unjustified interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights and was not shown to be necessary under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Council's actions were unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: K; Defendant: Halton Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Retention and Destruction of Records, Article 8 ECHR, Data Protection Act 1998, Child Protection, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Data Protection Legitimate Expectation Retention and Destruction of Records Article 8 ECHR Data Protection Act 1998 Child Protection +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Claimant

Halton Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's refusal to destroy the claimant's social services file was unlawful for breach of legitimate expectation, Article 8 ECHR, and/or the Data Protection Act 1998.
  2. 2 Whether the Council was justified in departing from a specific promise to destroy the file.
  3. 3 Whether the Council's retention and disclosure of the file was proportionate and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was bound by a specific and unconditional promise to destroy the file by 25 June 2002, creating a legitimate expectation. The Council failed to justify its departure from that promise by reference to any particular circumstances or balancing exercise. Continued retention and disclosure of the file constituted an unjustified interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights and was not shown to be necessary under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Council's actions were unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The defendant Council shall destroy the claimant's social services file within 14 days of the order.
  • The defendant Council shall pay the claimant's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.