President Donald J Trump v Orbis Business Intelligence Limited

President Donald J Trump v Orbis Business Intelligence Limited

The amendment to add a DPA 1998 claim was refused because it sought to introduce a new cause of action after expiry of the limitation period and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim. The surviving UK GDPR/DPA 2018 claim was summarily dismissed because there was no pleaded or evidential basis for compensation or a compliance order, and the only processing alleged (retention/storage) could not have caused the pleaded distress or reputational harm. Nominal damages are not available under the statutory scheme without proof of damage.

Parties
Claimant: President Donald J. Trump; Defendant: Orbis Business Intelligence Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Amendment Application and Summary Judgment/strike Out
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Data Protection Act 1998, Data Protection Act 2018, UK GDPR, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Data Protection Civil Procedure Data Protection Act 1998 Data Protection Act 2018 UK GDPR Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President Donald J. Trump

Claimant

Orbis Business Intelligence Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Amendment Application and Summary Judgment/strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be permitted to amend the Claim Form to add a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the claim under the UK GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018 discloses a reasonable cause of action or has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to add a DPA 1998 claim was refused because it sought to introduce a new cause of action after expiry of the limitation period and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim. The surviving UK GDPR/DPA 2018 claim was summarily dismissed because there was no pleaded or evidential basis for compensation or a compliance order, and the only processing alleged (retention/storage) could not have caused the pleaded distress or reputational harm. Nominal damages are not available under the statutory scheme without proof of damage.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment Application refused
  • Claim summarily dismissed under CPR 24.2