Alwitry -v- The States Employment Board and Minister for H&SS [2016] JRC 050 (25 February 2016)

Alwitry -v- The States Employment Board and Minister for H&SS [2016] JRC 050 (25 February 2016)

The Respondents failed to conduct a proper review of category 3 documents as required by the Data Protection Law. The Representor is entitled to disclosure of category 2 documents, including names and opinions of interviewees, subject to limited redaction where third party personal data is not relevant. The balancing exercise under Article 7(7) favours disclosure to the Representor given the context of the job offer withdrawal and the direct relevance of the data to him.

Citation
[2016] JRC 050
Parties
Representor: Dr Alwitry; First Respondent: States Employment Board; Second Respondent: Minister for Health and Social Services
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
25 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Application / Judgment on Subject Access Request
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Subject Access Request, Personal Data, Disclosure, Proportionality, Motivation for Request, Balancing Rights of Data Subjects
Data Protection Employment Law Subject Access Request Personal Data Disclosure Proportionality Motivation for Request Balancing Rights of Data Subjects

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Alwitry

Representor

States Employment Board

First Respondent

Minister for Health and Social Services

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Application / Judgment on Subject Access Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents complied with the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 in responding to subject access requests
  2. 2 Whether the Representor is entitled to disclosure of category 2 and category 3 documents
  3. 3 How to balance the rights of the Representor and third parties under Article 7(7) of the Data Protection Law

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents failed to conduct a proper review of category 3 documents as required by the Data Protection Law. The Representor is entitled to disclosure of category 2 documents, including names and opinions of interviewees, subject to limited redaction where third party personal data is not relevant. The balancing exercise under Article 7(7) favours disclosure to the Representor given the context of the job offer withdrawal and the direct relevance of the data to him.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Respondents must conduct a proper review of category 3 documents and disclose relevant personal data to the Representor, applying principles of proportionality and redaction as appropriate.
  • Category 2 documents, including names and opinions of interviewees, must be disclosed to the Representor, subject to limited redaction of irrelevant third party personal data.