Kenneth John Baillie Prentice against Chief Constable of Police Scotland (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCLAN 32 (30 April 2025)

Kenneth John Baillie Prentice against Chief Constable of Police Scotland (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCLAN 32 (30 April 2025)

The crave for declarator was incompetent as it sought a finding of breach rather than declaration of a disputed right; the pleadings for compensation were insufficiently specified and lacked fair notice; however, the pleadings for an order under section 167 were sufficient to proceed to proof as they contained enough information to allow the court to consider whether exemptions were properly applied.

Citation
[2025] SCLAN 32
Parties
Pursuer: Kenneth John Baillie Prentice; Defender: Chief Constable of Police Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (data Protection) / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Pleas; Some Craves Dismissed, Proof Allowed on Others
Outcome
First crave (declarator) dismissed as incompetent; third crave (compensation) dismissed for lack of specification; proof allowed on second crave (order for compliance) limited to specified averments; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Subject Access Requests, Statutory Exemptions, Declarator Competency, Compensation for Distress, Specification of Pleadings
Data Protection Civil Procedure Subject Access Requests Statutory Exemptions Declarator Competency Compensation for Distress Specification of Pleadings

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth John Baillie Prentice

Pursuer

Chief Constable of Police Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (data Protection) / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Pleas; Some Craves Dismissed, Proof Allowed on Others

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender failed to comply with statutory obligations under section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 in responding to subject access requests
  2. 2 Whether the crave for declarator is competent
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings support an order for compliance under section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018

Ratio Decidendi

The crave for declarator was incompetent as it sought a finding of breach rather than declaration of a disputed right; the pleadings for compensation were insufficiently specified and lacked fair notice; however, the pleadings for an order under section 167 were sufficient to proceed to proof as they contained enough information to allow the court to consider whether exemptions were properly applied.

Court Disposition

First crave (declarator) dismissed as incompetent; third crave (compensation) dismissed for lack of specification; proof allowed on second crave (order for compliance) limited to specified averments; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Dismissal of first crave (declarator) as incompetent
  • Repel defender's first plea-in-law