Editorial

This issue of Information Technology Law Reports contains one case from the Court of Appeal – DB v The General Medical Council and one from the High Court – BVC v EWF. In the former, the court was concerned with a report, which contained  ‘mixed personal data’ of a GP and a patient. The competing interests of both had to be balanced. The Court of Appeal made it clear that data controllers had a wide margin of appreciation when conducting the balancing exercise under section 7(4-6) of the Data Protection Act 1998. In these circumstances, they should consider, in their discretion, not only which factors were relevant but how much weight should be given to each factor. In the latter case, the defendant was retrospectively granted an extension of time to file his application. It was held that the parties’ centre of interests, considering the pursuit of professional activities, established a close link with England and, therefore, jurisdiction lay with the English courts. The court further held that the service of the claim form outside the jurisdiction was valid, as there had been good reason for serving the claim form by an alternative method.

Richard Budworth
Editor, Information Technology Law Reports

Dr B v The General Medical Council
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Arden, Sales and Irwin LJJ
28 June 2018 
[2018] EWCA Civ 1497

Data protection– personal data – subject access request – disclosure – appeal – whether rebuttable presumption against disclosure – balancing exercise – Data Protection Act 1998 – appeal allowed.

BVC v EWF
High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Karen Steyn QC
5 October 2018 
[2018] EWHC 2674 (QB)

Private information – misuse – harassment – interim injunction – website – jurisdiction – special jurisdiction – service – Lugano Convention – ‘centre of interests’ doctrine – extension of time granted and jurisdiction challenge dismissed.