YSL v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

YSL v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process to the extent it relates to disclosures by CAMHS staff, having been compromised by a prior settlement. Remaining claims regarding retention, accuracy, and processing of risk assessments fail on the merits, as the Defendant had lawful grounds for processing and retention under data protection legislation and NHS policy. The 20-year retention period is proportionate and justified under Article 8 ECHR. Claims of inaccuracy are not properly pleaded and relate to professional opinion, not matters of fact.

Parties
Claimant: YSL; Defendant: Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
GDPR, Data Retention, Accuracy of Medical Records, Article 8 ECHR, Misuse of Private Information, Abuse of Process
Data Protection Privacy Human Rights Healthcare Law GDPR Data Retention Accuracy of Medical Records Article 8 ECHR +2 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YSL

Claimant

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant unlawfully processed and retained the Claimant's personal data
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached data protection principles under DPA 1998, DPA 2018, EU GDPR, UK GDPR
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant failed to ensure the accuracy of the Claimant's data

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process to the extent it relates to disclosures by CAMHS staff, having been compromised by a prior settlement. Remaining claims regarding retention, accuracy, and processing of risk assessments fail on the merits, as the Defendant had lawful grounds for processing and retention under data protection legislation and NHS policy. The 20-year retention period is proportionate and justified under Article 8 ECHR. Claims of inaccuracy are not properly pleaded and relate to professional opinion, not matters of fact.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendant
  • Claimant's application for summary judgment rejected