DB v The General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 2331 (QB) (23 September 2016)

DB v The General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 2331 (QB) (23 September 2016)

The GMC's balancing exercise was unlawful because it failed to start with the presumption against disclosure in the absence of consent, gave insufficient weight to the claimant's privacy rights and express refusal of consent, and did not adequately consider that the dominant purpose of the request was for litigation. The appropriate forum for such disclosure is court procedure, not a data subject access request under the DPA.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2331
Parties
Claimant: Dr DB; Defendant: The General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Claim for Declaratory Relief Under Inherent Jurisdiction (cpr Part 8) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim succeeded; GMC's decision to disclose the report was unlawful.
Legal Topics
Data Subject Access Requests, Mixed Personal Data, Disclosure Balancing Exercise, Article 8 ECHR, Professional Reputation, Confidentiality, Freedom of Information, Judicial Review
Data Protection Privacy Law Medical Law Data Subject Access Requests Mixed Personal Data Disclosure Balancing Exercise Article 8 ECHR Professional Reputation +3 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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr DB

Claimant

The General Medical Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Declaratory Relief Under Inherent Jurisdiction (cpr Part 8) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the GMC's decision to disclose an expert report containing mixed personal data to a complainant under s.7 DPA was lawful
  2. 2 How to balance competing privacy rights of two data subjects under s.7(4)-(6) DPA
  3. 3 Whether the purpose of the request (potential litigation) is a relevant factor in the balancing exercise

Ratio Decidendi

The GMC's balancing exercise was unlawful because it failed to start with the presumption against disclosure in the absence of consent, gave insufficient weight to the claimant's privacy rights and express refusal of consent, and did not adequately consider that the dominant purpose of the request was for litigation. The appropriate forum for such disclosure is court procedure, not a data subject access request under the DPA.

Court Disposition

Claim succeeded; GMC's decision to disclose the report was unlawful.

Orders

  • Submissions invited as to the appropriate form of order and consequential relief.