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 decision to disclose the report was unlawful because it failed to start from the presumption against disclosure in the absence of consent, gave insufficient weight to Dr DB's privacy rights and express refusal, and did not properly consider the litigation purpose of the request or the availability of court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2331 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr DB; Defendant: The General Medical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Declaratory Relief (cpr Part 8) / Final Judgment
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, Section 7 Data Protection Act 1998
Data Protection Privacy Law Medical Law Data Subject Access Requests Mixed Personal Data Disclosure Balancing Exercise Article 8 ECHR Professional Reputation +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr DB

Claimant

The General Medical Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Declaratory Relief (cpr Part 8) / Final Judgment

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 data subjects in mixed data cases
  3. 3 Whether the purpose of the request (potential litigation) is a relevant factor in the balancing exercise

Ratio Decidendi

The GMC's decision to disclose the report was unlawful because it failed to start from the presumption against disclosure in the absence of consent, gave insufficient weight to Dr DB's privacy rights and express refusal, and did not properly consider the litigation purpose of the request or the availability of court procedures for disclosure. The balancing exercise was flawed and the claim succeeds.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Declaration that the GMC's decision to disclose the report was unlawful
  • Further submissions invited as to the appropriate form of order and consequential relief