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 pleaded case did not sufficiently set out a positive case of factual accuracy or compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and a bare denial is insufficient under CPR 16.5. Permission to amend the defence to assert factual accuracy is refused due to lateness, lack of explanation, and prejudice to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 523 (QB)
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
Civil / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Application for permission to amend defence to plead factual accuracy refused; permission to amend to clarify reliance on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 granted with conditions.
Legal Topics
Data Accuracy, Pleading Requirements, Amendment of Pleadings, Remedies Under Data Protection Act 1998
Data Protection Media Law Data Accuracy Pleading Requirements Amendment of Pleadings Remedies Under Data Protection Act 1998

Source-derived case record

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 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

Civil / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant can amend its defence to plead factual accuracy of personal data
  2. 2 Whether the defence as pleaded sufficiently asserts accuracy or compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are prejudiced by late amendments to the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's pleaded case did not sufficiently set out a positive case of factual accuracy or compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and a bare denial is insufficient under CPR 16.5. Permission to amend the defence to assert factual accuracy is refused due to lateness, lack of explanation, and prejudice to the claimants and the administration of justice. Permission is granted to amend the defence to clarify reliance on accurate recording of third-party information under Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7, provided the third party is identified.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend defence to plead factual accuracy refused; permission to amend to clarify reliance on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 granted with conditions.

Orders

  • Defendant to amend defence to include reliance on accurate recording of third-party information under Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7, identifying the third party.
  • Defendant to amend Mr Steele's witness statement to remove irrelevant post-publication material.