Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd

Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd

The defendant's pleaded case did not sufficiently set out a positive case on the factual accuracy of the data as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. A bare denial is insufficient without reasons or an alternative version of events. The late application to amend the defence to plead factual accuracy would require adjournment and cause prejudice to the claimants and the administration of justice, and there was no adequate explanation for the delay. Permission to amend to assert factual accuracy was refused, but permission was granted to amend to rely on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, provided the defendant identifies the third party relied on.

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 Ruling on Applications to Amend Defence and Strike Out Evidence
Outcome
Defendant's application to amend defence to plead factual accuracy refused; permission granted to amend to rely on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 DPA 1998, subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Data Accuracy, Pleading Requirements, Amendment of Pleadings, Remedies Under Data Protection Act, Disclosure Obligations
Data Protection Civil Procedure Data Accuracy Pleading Requirements Amendment of Pleadings Remedies Under Data Protection Act Disclosure Obligations

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 8 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 Ruling on Applications to Amend Defence and Strike Out Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant may amend its defence to plead factual accuracy of personal data
  2. 2 Whether parts of the defendant's witness statement should be struck out as irrelevant or outside the pleaded case
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's pleading complies with CPR 16.5 regarding denials and positive cases

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's pleaded case did not sufficiently set out a positive case on the factual accuracy of the data as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. A bare denial is insufficient without reasons or an alternative version of events. The late application to amend the defence to plead factual accuracy would require adjournment and cause prejudice to the claimants and the administration of justice, and there was no adequate explanation for the delay. Permission to amend to assert factual accuracy was refused, but permission was granted to amend to rely on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, provided the defendant identifies the third party relied on.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to amend defence to plead factual accuracy refused; permission granted to amend to rely on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 DPA 1998, subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Defendant to amend defence to include reliance on Schedule 1 Part II paragraph 7 DPA 1998 and identify third party relied on, subject to rights under Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR.
  • Necessary amendments to be made to Mr Steele's witness statement to remove irrelevant post-publication material.