BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Aven & Ors v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 666 (QB) (17 March 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/666.html Cite as: [2020] EWHC 666 (QB) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Petr Aven Mikhail Fridman German Khan |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
Orbis Business Intelligence Limited |
Defendant |
____________________
Gavin Millar QC and Robin Hopkins (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 17th March 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Warby Tuesday, 17 March 2020
(3:18 pm)
Ruling by MR JUSTICE WARBY
"The fourth principle is not to be regarded as being contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in personal data which accurately record information obtained by the data controller from the data subject or a third party in a case where -
(a) having regard to the purpose or purposes for which the data were obtained and further processed, the data controller has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the data, and
(b) if the data subject has notified the data controller of the data subject's view that the data are inaccurate, the data indicate that fact."
"The defendant also relies on paragraph 7 of part II, schedule 1 of the DPA. The defendant accurately recorded information it obtained from a third party. The identity of that third party is confidential. By virtue of section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the defendant is not required to disclose the source of that information. The defendant's records have, since 8 February 2019, indicated that the claimants contest the accuracy of some of their personal data as contained in Memorandum 112."
"... took such care as was reasonably required in the circumstances, including to establish the accuracy of the personal data complained of."
"In relation to each third party source ... state:
(a) the length of time Mr Steele had known that source at the relevant time."
The response to that was as follows:
"A response to this request ... poses a risk of jigsaw identification and accordingly Mr Steele will not respond voluntarily."