Short answer: probably not, under the current ICO regime. But the fact that PECR are now enforced under the Data Protection Act 2018, rather than the 1998 Act, makes it in principle much easier for fines for cookie contraventions to happen.
By me, on the Mishcon de Reya website:
https://www.mishcon.com/news/unlawful-cookies-a-new-avenue-for-the-ico-to-issue-fines
I’ve written for the Mishcon de Reya website on the commencement on 5 February of the majority of the data protection and eprivacy provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025:
https://www.mishcon.com/news/data-protection-and-electronic-privacy-reform-whats-hot-and-whats-not
This is a helpful short Court of Appeal judgment on the appropriate forum for a data protection of relatively low value and limited complexity (spoiler: it’s the County Court, folks).
The claimant had originally incorrectly issued his claim as a High Court media and communications claim in the Cardiff District Registry (if data protection claims are to be issued in the High Court, they must be issued in the King’s Bench Division at the Royal Courts of Justice). The judge in the High Court in Cardiff transferred the claim to the County Court but his order arguably contained insufficient reasons, and did not explain that either party could apply to have it set aside or varied (as required by CPR 3.3(5)(b). The claimant tried to make representations, by way of an email, as to why the High Court was the appropriate forum, but this was rejected on the basis that it had been filed in the wrong court. By that stage, the transfer to the County Court had taken effect. Accordingly, the matters arising could only be determined by way of appeal.
In its determination, the CoA found that the case (involving disclosure, in separate proceedings, of medical information by a court security guard to an usher and a solicitor for a third party) did not appear to involve any factual or legal complexity, and the claimed sum of £30,000 was clearly within the ambit of the County Court.
(I interject here to observe that, on the brief facts as recorded in the judgment, there might have been some legal complexity – it seems likely that the disclosure would have been made orally by the security guard, so was there “processing” involved?)
Wysokinski v OCS Security Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 26
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
Filed under Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, judgments, UK GDPR
If anyone who deals with data subject access requests, or disclosure exercises in general, wants to read a horror story, they should look at the recent judgment in Forsters LLP v Uddin [2025] EWHC 3255 (KB).
This was an application for an interim injunction for breach of confidence, seeking delivery up by the defendant of confidential and privileged documents. Forsters, a law firm, act for Mr and Mrs Alloatti, who are in a dispute with their neighbour, Mr Uddin. No doubt in an attempt to advance his case, Mr Uddin made a DSAR directly to Forsters. But instead of disclosing Mr Uddin’s personal data to him, Forsters disclosed the entire contents of the file containing information responsive to a systems search for the name “Uddin”. This resulted not only in the disclosure of personal data of people unconnected to the dispute, but also in disclosure of around 95% (3,000+ pages) of the Alloatti client file, much of it confidential and privileged.
Unsurprisingly, Forsters were successful in their application. This was a very clear case of “obvious mistake” (see Fayed v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 780). And
where a party to litigation discloses documents to the opposing party which are confidential and privileged and the court is satisfied that it is a case of ‘obvious mistake’, which was either known to or ought to have been known to the receiving party, the Court will intervene by injunction to, so far as possible, put the parties back into the position they would have been had the error not occurred. This will usually involve granting an injunction that requires the recipient to deliver up the documents, to destroy any copies he has made of them and which restrains him from making any use of the information contained in the documents.
Further proof that this was a mistake lay in the fact that Mr Uddin, on receiving the disclosure, immediately notified Forsters of the breaches of confidence and GDPR. Although he later sought to row back on this in order to retain and use the information in his dispute with the Alloattis, his argument that the disclosure was lawful as a DSAR response was doomed.
One argument that found greater favour with the judge was that the “erroneous disclosure to him has undermined the confidentiality and privilege in the information he has seen”. But although the judge accepted that Mr Uddin could not “un-know” some of what he had seen he held that
Nonetheless, the court can help the Claimant to regain control over the 3,300 documents themselves and over the way in which information from those documents is deployed in the two claims. In this way, the court can remedy most of the mischief which this inadvertent disclosure has caused
Accordingly, in addition to delivery up and deletion, he was injuncted from using any of the documents, or information from them, in the underlying claim or in a separate claim in harassment against two Forsters employees.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
Filed under Breach of confidence, Data Protection, judgments, subject access
[reposted from my LinkedIn Account]
I’ve been known to criticise First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judgments in the freedom of information jurisdiction. By contrast, this one is superb.
In it, the FTT dismantle the argument (and the decision notice) of the Information Commissioner’s Office that Bolton NHS Foundation Trust were entitled to “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) holding reviews, including a review by PWC, into the Trust’s governance and management. The PWC review was the subject of an article in the Health Service Journal, and the requester was the journalist, Lawrence Dunhill.
Firstly, the FTT noted that the ICO “case begins with an elementary error of fact. It treats the Trust as having given an NCND response to the entirety of the Request when it did no such thing” (the Trust had only applied NCND in respect of the request for a PWC report, but had confirmed it held other reviews). Oddly, the Trust, in its submissions for the appeal, simply ignored this error (the FTT chose not to speculate on “whether that omission was accidental or tactical”).
Secondly, and notably, the FTT found a fundamental error of law in the ICO’s approach (and, by implication, in its guidance) to NCND in the context of personal data. Section 2(3)(fa) of FOIA provides that section 40(2) is an absolute exemption (therefore not subject to a public interest test). But section 2(3) does not include section 40(5B) (the personal data NCND provision) in the list of absolute exemptions. As far as I know, the ICO has always taken the view, however, that it is an absolute exemption – certainly its current guidance says this).
That approach, held the FTT, is “simply wrong…the exemption under FOIA, s40(5B)(a)(i) is qualified and the public interest balancing test applies”. And but for that error, they said, the ICO might have reached a different conclusion.
As it was, the FTT held that the legitimate interests balancing test under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR was sufficient to determine the issue: merely confirming or denying whether the PWC review was held would not cause unwarranted prejudice to a named individual when balanced against the requester’s legitimate interests.
It will be interesting to see if the ICO appeal this. Given the strength of the criticism it would perhaps be bold to do so, but it might be that the only alternative will be to have to rewrite their guidance on s40(5), and rethink their long-held view on it.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
The Court of Appeal has handed down an extraordinary judgment (Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 1397) in which the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire was forced to admit civil contempt of court, after camera footage, which the police force had repeatedly insisted, including before the lower courts, and also in response to an express order of the county court, did not exist, was found to exist just before the appeal hearing.
The appellant/applicant, Ms Buzzard-Quashie, had been arrested and initially charged with an offence in 2021. The arrest had involved three officers, all of whom had deployed body-worn-video cameras. Ms Buzzard-Quashie had complained about the arrest very shortly afterwards, and had sought copies of the footage. Although the charge was dropped, the force made only “piecemeal” disclosure, before determining that there was no further footage, or what there had been, had been destroyed.
At that point, she complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who told her that it had told the force “to revisit the way it handled your request and provide you with a comprehensive disclosure of the personal data to which you would be entitled as soon as possible”. (Here, the court – I believe – slightly misrepresents this as an “order” by the ICO. The ICO has the power to make an order, by way of an enforcement notice, but it does not appear to have issued a notice (and it would be highly unusual for it to do so in a case like this).)
The force did not do what the ICO had told it to do, so Ms Buzzard-Quashie issued proceedings in the Brentford County Court and obtained an order requiring the force to deliver up to her any footage in its possession or, if none was available or disclosable, to provide a statement from an officer “of a rank no lower than Inspector” explaining why it could not. It also required the force to pay her costs.
Remarkably, the force did not comply with any element of this order. This failure led to Ms Buzzard-Quashie initiating contempt proceedings in the High Court. At that hearing the Chief Constable, in evidence, maintained that that a full search had already been performed; all the footage had been produced; no other footage existed; and he was not in contempt. The judge found that Ms Buzzard-Quashie had not succeeded in establishing to the criminal standard that the Chief Constable was in contempt.
Upon appeal, and just before the hearing, primarily through the efforts of Ms Buzzard-Quashie and her lawyers (acting pro bono), the force was compelled to admit that footage did still exist: its searches had been manifestly inadequate.
The CoA found that eight pieces of information and evidence (and this was “only a selection”) had not been true, and that “the Chief Constable had not only failed to comply with the [County Court] Order in both substance and form, but had advanced a wholly erroneous factual case before that court, and before this court as well”. Ms Buzzard-Quashie clearly succeeded in her appeal.
The judgment records that the issue of sanction for the contempt found “must wait until the next round of the process”, which presumably will be a further (or perhaps remitted) hearing.
There are any number of issues arising from this. It is, for example, notable that the data protection officer for the force was involved in the searches (and, indeed, she gave the initial statement that the County Court had ordered be given by an Inspector or above).
But a standout point for me is how incredibly difficult it was for Ms Buzzard-Quashie to vindicate her rights: the police force, for whatever reason, felt able to disregard both the statutory regulator and an order of a court. She and her pro bono lawyers showed admirable tenacity and skill, but those features (and that pro bono support) are not available to everyone. One welcomes the fact that all three judges noted her efforts and those of the lawyers.
The force has referred itself to the Independent Office of Police Conduct, and the Court of Appeal has reinforced that by making the referral part of its own order.
In this post I’ve tried to summarise the judgment, but I would strongly encourage its reading. The screenshot here is merely part of the damning findings.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
Response to FOI request says it would take 237 hours to find out. How can ICO have confidence lessons have been learnt?
Anyone who’s ever had been responsible for compiling or overseeing a data breach log will know that one of the commonest incidents is the inadvertent disclosure of personal data. And since the time spreadsheets could first be sent via, or uploaded to, the internet people have mistakenly left personal data in them which should have been removed or otherwise masked. It’s not a new phenomenon: as long ago as 2013 I wrote for the Guardian about the risks, and what I perceived then as a lack of urgency by the Information Commissioner’s Office in addressing, and educating about, those risks.
So it might be found surprising that, two years after the most catastrophic data breach in UK history, in which the information of thousands of Afghan citizens was mistakenly disclosed, putting many lives directly at risk, the Ministry of Defence appears to have no process for identifying when or whether there have been recurrences of the issue.
Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 permits a government department not to comply with a request where locating and retrieving any information held would take more than 24 hours. It’s not uncommon for it to be invoked where requests are formulated in too general a manner.
But when I made a request to the MoD for
the number of personal data breaches recorded between April 2023 to date which involved: a) disclosure of personal data to the wrong recipient; b) inadvertent disclosure of personal data contained in a spreadsheet
I imagined that this would be relatively easily located and extracted. Most data breach logs I’ve seen would be categorised in such a way as to enable this. However, the MoD instead informed me that it would take over 237 hours to do so.
Helpfully, the MoD said that if I restricted my request just to the first part (“disclosure of personal data to the wrong recipient”) they might be able to comply. But what this appears to indicate is that no, or no clear, record is being taken of whether there have been repeats of the spreadsheet error involving Afghan citizens.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has come under some criticism – including from the leading academics, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, and me – for failing even to conduct a formal investigation into the Afghan spreadsheet data breach. Justifying that decision, the Commissioner himself said that
MoD has briefed us on the measures it has adopted since the breach, which seek to mitigate risk of such an incident occurring in future
But if the MoD cannot say (without it taking more than 237 hours) whether there have been further such incidents, how can they reassure themselves that the risk has been indicated?
And perhaps more pertinently, how can the ICO be satisfied of this?
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
I’ve written up my thoughts for the Mishcon de Reya website, on the baffling decision by the ICO to take no action in response to the most catastrophic data breach in UK history, which exposed many thousands of people to immediate risk to their lives.
https://www.mishcon.com/news/data-protection-risks-to-life-should-more-be-done
“Pretexting” and “blagging” are forms of social engineering whereby someone attempts to extract information from a source by deception. One (unethical) example is when a journalist purports to be someone else in order to gather information for a story.
A recent misuse of private information and data protection judgment in the High Court deals with a different, and sadly not uncommon, example – where an estranged, abusive partner convinced a third party to give information about their partner so they can continue their harassment of them.
The claimant had worked at a JD Wetherspoon pub, but had left a few months previously. She had given her contact details, including her mother’s mobile phone number, to her manager, and the details were kept in a paper file, marked “Strictly Private and Confidential”, in a locked filing cabinet. During the time she was employed she had been the victim of offences by a former partner of serious violence and harassment which involved subjecting her to many unwanted phone calls. He was ultimately convicted of these and sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison. Her employer was aware of the claimant’s concerns about him.
While her abuser was on remand, he rang the pub, pretending to be a police officer who needed to contact the claimant urgently. Although the pub chain had guidance on pretexting, under which such attempts to acquire information should be declined initially and referred to head office, the pub gave out the claimant’s mother’s number to the abuser, who then managed to speak to (and verbally abuse) the claimant, causing understandable distress.
She brought claims in the county court in misuse of private information, breach of confidence and for breach of data protection law. She succeeded at first instance with the first two, but not with the data protection claim. Wetherspoons appealed and she cross-challenged, not by appeal but by way of a respondent’s notice, the rejection of the data protection claim.
In a well-reasoned judgment in Raine v JD Wetherspoon PLC [2025] EWHC 1593 (KB), Mr Justice Bright dismissed the defendant’s appeals. He rejected their argument that the Claimant’s mother’s mobile phone number did not constitute the Claimant’s information or alternatively that it was not information in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy: it was not ownership of the mobile phone that mattered, nor ownership of the account relating to it – what was relevant was information: the knowledge of the relevant digits. As between the claimant and the defendant, that was the claimant’s information, which was undoubtedly private when given to the defendants and was intended to remain private, rather than being published to others.
The defendant then argued that there can be no cause of action for misuse of private information if the Claimant is unable to establish a claim under the DPA/GDPR, and, relatedly, that a data security duty could not arise under the scope of the tortious cause of action of misuse of private information. In all honesty I struggle to understand this argument, at least as articulated in the judgment, probably because, as the judge suggests, this was not a data security case involving failure to take measures to secure the information. Rather, it involved a positive act of misuse: the positive disclosure of the information by the defendant to the abuser.
The broadly similar appeal grounds in relation to breach of confidence failed, for broadly similar reasons.
The counter challenge to the prior dismissal of the data protection claim, by contrast, succeeded. At first instance, the recorder had accepted the defendant’s argument that this was a case of purely oral disclosure of information, and that, applying Scott v LGBT Foundation Limited, this was not “processing” of “personal data”. However, as the judge found, in Scott,
the information had only ever been provided to the defendant orally; and…then retained not in electronic or manual form in a filing system, but only in the memory of the individual who had received the original oral disclosure…In that case, there was no record, and no processing. Here, there was a record of the relevant information, and it was processed: the personnel file was accessed by [the defendant’s employee], the relevant information was extracted by her and provided in written form to [another employee], for him to communicate to [the abuser].
This fell “squarely within the definition of ‘processing’ in the GDPR at article 4(2)”. Furthermore, there was judicial authority in Holyoake v Candy that, in some circumstances, oral disclosure will constitute processing (a view supported by the European Court in Endemol Shine Finland Oy).
Damages for personal injury, in the form of exacerbation of existing psychological damage, of £4500 were upheld.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
Section 1(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 tells us that
Most processing of personal data is subject to the UK GDPR
Despite the attention given to the progress of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (and I have certainly given it a lot), now that it has passed, its significance for data protection practitioners is essentially only in how it will amend the three core legislative instruments relevant to their practice area: the UK GDPR, the DPA 2018, and PECR.
The DUAA is (in data protection law terms) mostly an amending statute: once its provisions have commenced, their relevance lies in how they amend those three core texts.
How that amending is done in practice is important to note.
When a piece of legislation is amended, Parliament doesn’t reenact it, so the “official” printed version remains. In pre-internet days this meant that practitioners had to read the original instrument, and the amending instrument, side by side, and note what changes applied. This was generally done with the assistance of legal publishers, who might print “consolidated” versions of the original instrument with, effectively, the amendments showing in mark-up.
In the internet age, things actually haven’t changed in substance, but it’s very much easier to read the consolidated versions. If, for example, you go to the legislation.gov.uk website, and look at the DPA 2018, you can view it in “Original (as enacted)” version, and “Latest available” version (in the second image below, for instance, you can see that “GDPR” was amended to “UK GDPR”, with the footnote explaining that this was effected by
The Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019)).
The DUAA has not been published yet (and remember that many of its provisions won’t come into immediate effect, but will require secondary legislation to “commence” them into effect), but once it is, and once the clever people who maintain the legislation website have done their thing, most practitioners won’t need to refer to the DUAA: they should, instead, refer to the newly amended, consolidated versions of the UK GDPR, the DPA 2018 and PECR.
And also remember, “Most processing of personal data is [still] subject to the UK GDPR”.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
informationrightsandwrongs 