Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB) (27 February 2020)

Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 523 (QB) (27 February 2020)

The defendant's existing pleading did not sufficiently set out a positive case of factual accuracy or provide reasons for denial as required by CPR 16.5. A bare denial is insufficient notice to the claimants. The proposed amendments were late, inadequately explained, and would require adjournment, causing prejudice to the claimants and the administration of justice. Permission to amend to plead factual accuracy was refused, but permission was granted to amend to plead accurate recording of third-party information under Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 7 of the DPA 1998, provided the third party is identified.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 523
Parties
Claimant: Petr Aven; Claimant: Mikhail Fridman; Claimant: German Khan; Defendant: Orbis Business Intelligence Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Claim (pre Trial Review) / Pre Trial Review Ruling on Amendment of Defence and Related Applications
Outcome
Permission to amend defence to plead factual accuracy refused; permission to amend to plead accurate recording of third-party information under DPA 1998 Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 7 granted, subject to identification of third party.
Legal Topics
Data Accuracy, Pleading Requirements, Amendment of Defence, Remedies Under Data Protection Act 1998
Data Protection Civil Procedure Data Accuracy Pleading Requirements Amendment of Defence Remedies Under Data Protection Act 1998

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petr Aven

Claimant

Mikhail Fridman

Claimant

German Khan

Claimant

Orbis Business Intelligence Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Claim (pre Trial Review) / Pre Trial Review Ruling on Amendment of Defence and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant may amend its defence to plead a positive case of factual accuracy regarding personal data in Memorandum 112
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's existing pleading sufficiently sets out a case on accuracy under the Data Protection Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' application to strike out parts of the defendant's witness statement should succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's existing pleading did not sufficiently set out a positive case of factual accuracy or provide reasons for denial as required by CPR 16.5. A bare denial is insufficient notice to the claimants. The proposed amendments were late, inadequately explained, and would require adjournment, causing prejudice to the claimants and the administration of justice. Permission to amend to plead factual accuracy was refused, but permission was granted to amend to plead accurate recording of third-party information under Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 7 of the DPA 1998, provided the third party is identified.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend defence to plead factual accuracy refused; permission to amend to plead accurate recording of third-party information under DPA 1998 Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 7 granted, subject to identification of third party.

Orders

  • Defendant granted permission to amend defence to plead accurate recording of third-party information, subject to identification of third party.
  • Defendant refused permission to amend defence to plead factual accuracy.