Claudia Aquilina, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin)
Dr Gary Duke v Jackie Moores & Ors
29 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2746 (KB)
High Court
A teacher sued his college after being fired following an investigation. He claimed his privacy was violated. The court said the college had a right to investigate, and the teacher's privacy concerns didn't outweigh the college's need to investigate potential misconduct.
Key Facts
- •Dr Gary Duke, a teacher, sued Tameside College and three of its employees for misuse of private information and data protection breaches related to a disciplinary investigation.
- •The investigation stemmed from allegations that Duke failed to disclose past dismissals and engaged in inappropriate communications with students and staff.
- •Information used in the investigation included Facebook and WhatsApp messages, references from previous employers, and observations of Duke's activities.
- •Duke was ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct.
- •The defendants applied to strike out Duke's claims or grant summary judgment.
Legal Principles
Rules for striking out a claim or granting summary judgment under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and CPR 24.2.
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] 4 WLR 35, Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Two-stage test for misuse of private information: (1) reasonable expectation of privacy; (2) balancing privacy against freedom of expression.
HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] 4 WLR 35, ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2020] EWCA Civ 611, Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 3541 (QB)
Data protection principles under Article 5 of the UK GDPR, including lawful, fair, and transparent processing.
UK GDPR, Article 5, Article 6, Meta Platforms Inc and Others v Bundeskartellamt [2023] 5 CMLR 22
Claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 can only be brought against public authorities (section 6).
Human Rights Act 1998, section 6
Outcomes
Duke's claims were struck out and dismissed.
The court found Duke had no real prospect of success on his misuse of private information, data protection, and human rights claims. The college's actions were deemed necessary for the disciplinary investigation and did not outweigh Duke's privacy rights.
Summary judgment entered for the defendants.
The court determined Duke lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the information used in the investigation, particularly given the context of a disciplinary process and the public availability of some information.
Claimant's application for permission to appeal refused.
The court found the grounds for appeal lacked merit and there was no compelling reason to allow the claims to proceed.