ST (A Minor) & Anor v L Primary School (Rev 2)

ST (A Minor) & Anor v L Primary School (Rev 2)

The School sent a letter disclosing ST's sensitive personal data without parental consent, which was not necessary or proportionate, breaching the Data Protection Act 1998, Articles 8 and 14 ECHR, and the tort of misuse of personal information. The claimants had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the School failed to justify the disclosure.

Parties
Claimant: ST; Claimant: RF; Defendant: L Primary School
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Misuse of Personal Information, Article 8 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Disability Discrimination

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ST

Claimant

RF

Claimant

L Primary School

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether the School breached the Data Protection Act 1998 by sending a letter disclosing sensitive personal data without consent
  2. 2 Whether the School's actions breached the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically Articles 8 and 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the School misused personal information of the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The School sent a letter disclosing ST's sensitive personal data without parental consent, which was not necessary or proportionate, breaching the Data Protection Act 1998, Articles 8 and 14 ECHR, and the tort of misuse of personal information. The claimants had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the School failed to justify the disclosure.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the School breached the Data Protection Act 1998 but no compensation to ST under the DPA
  • Declaration that the School breached Articles 8 and 14 ECHR rights of both ST and RF but no separate damages under the HRA