Holyoake v Candy & Anor

The defendants' searches in response to the narrowed SARs were reasonable and proportionate. The claim to legal professional privilege exemption was properly made and not displaced by any credible evidence of iniquity, crime, or breach of fundamental rights. There was no basis for court inspection of the privileged data, and the claim under s 7(9) DPA was dismissed.

Parties: Claimant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Defendant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Defendant: CPC Group Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 January 2017
Procedural Posture: Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome: Claim dismissed
Legal Topics: Subject Access Requests, Legal Professional Privilege, Reasonable Search, Abuse of Process, Fundamental Rights

Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure Subject Access Requests Legal Professional Privilege Reasonable Search Abuse of Process Fundamental Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Mark Alan Holyoake

Claimant

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Defendant

CPC Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

1 Adequacy of searches in response to narrowed Subject Access Requests
2 Validity of reliance on Legal Professional Privilege exemption
3 Whether SARs were made for collateral and improper motives (abuse of process)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed