A patient alleged that the claimant GP had misdiagnosed him. He
submitted a subject access request under section 7 of the Data
Protection Act 1998 to the General Medical Council
("GMC"). The claimant argued that an expert report
obtained by the GMC for the purpose of investigating the
patient's complaint should not be disclosed to the patient
(even though it contained personal data relating to the patient) as
this would breach his right of privacy as a data subject.
Accordingly, the case involved the competing privacy rights of the
patient and the GP in the personal data contained in the
In such circumstances, a balancing exercise must be carried out.
The GMC held that the report should be disclosed and the claimant
then brought proceedings to prevent disclosure.
Soole J held as follows:
In the absence of consent, there is a
rebuttable presumption against disclosure. The express refusal of
consent is also a factor to be taken into account.
There is prior conflicting caselaw as
to whether the purpose for the request is a factor which should be
taken into account in the balancing exercise. The GMC conceded
(rightly, in the judge's view) that the requester's
intention to use the information in furtherance of litigation was a
factor which could be taken into account. The judge concluded that:
"if it appears that the sole or dominant purpose is to obtain
a document for the purpose of a claim against the other data
subject, that is a weighty factor in favour of refusal, on the
basis that the more appropriate forum is the Court procedure under
CPR 31". The judge also noted that obtaining information in
order to use it in intended litigation was not the purpose
contemplated by the relevant EU Directive (namely, to protect the
requester's privacy by ensuring the accuracy of personal
Accordingly, the patient was not entitled to disclosure of the
The English Commercial Court has published two recent judgments of Mr Justice Popplewell in a single anonymised case concerning the removal of two arbitrators under section 24(1)(d)(i) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
As a condition to challenging enforcement or recognition of an arbitration award, the UK Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeal decision which imposed a $100 Million security obligation on a New York Convention arbitral award debtor...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).