Sofola v Lloyds TSB Bank [2005] EWHC 1335 (QB) (27 June 2005)

Sofola v Lloyds TSB Bank [2005] EWHC 1335 (QB) (27 June 2005)

The appeal was allowed in respect of the claims under ss.13 and 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 because the process was undermined by the mistaken belief that the 1996 record had been deleted, the absence of reasons from the lower courts, and the existence of arguable claims for damage and rectification. The claims should not have been struck out and must proceed to disclosure and trial.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1335
Parties
Claimant: Abayomi Sofola; Defendant: Lloyds TSB Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment/strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; strike out and summary judgment set aside in respect of claims under ss.13 and 14 Data Protection Act 1998 and slander; claims to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Data Protection Act 1998, Qualified Privilege, Summary Judgment, Rectification of Data, Compensation for Damage, Slander
Data Protection Defamation Civil Procedure Data Protection Act 1998 Qualified Privilege Summary Judgment Rectification of Data Compensation for Damage +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abayomi Sofola

Claimant

Lloyds TSB Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment/strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank's retention and disclosure of inaccurate personal data breached the Data Protection Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the Bank's statements to the police constituted slander or malicious falsehood
  3. 3 Whether the claim for damages under s.13 and rectification under s.14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 had a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in respect of the claims under ss.13 and 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 because the process was undermined by the mistaken belief that the 1996 record had been deleted, the absence of reasons from the lower courts, and the existence of arguable claims for damage and rectification. The claims should not have been struck out and must proceed to disclosure and trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; strike out and summary judgment set aside in respect of claims under ss.13 and 14 Data Protection Act 1998 and slander; claims to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Appeal re-opened and allowed in respect of claims under ss.13 and 14 Data Protection Act 1998 and slander
  • Strike out and summary judgment set aside for these claims