Chowdhury v Secretary of State for the Home Office & Ors
[2024] EWHC 844 (KB)
YSL v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
22 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 391 (KB)
High Court
A former patient sued an NHS trust for mishandling their medical records. Because the patient had already settled a similar case, the judge threw out the new case. The judge also said the trust followed the rules regarding patient information, and that keeping the records for 20 years was reasonable. The judge refused to keep the decision secret because the public has a right to know how these cases are decided.
Key Facts
- •YSL (Claimant), a former patient of Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (Defendant), brought a claim under data protection legislation, privacy laws, and the Human Rights Act 1998.
- •The claim concerned the alleged unlawful processing and retention of YSL's patient records, including allegations of inaccurate data and unlawful disclosures to third parties.
- •YSL and the Defendant had reached a settlement agreement in 2016 concerning similar claims.
- •The Defendant applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process due to the 2016 settlement and YSL's vexatious conduct.
- •YSL's claim covered alleged unlawful disclosures, unlawful retention of records, processing of risk assessments from Surrey Police, and failure to erase records.
Legal Principles
Abuse of Process
CPR r. 3.4(2)(b), Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Summary Judgment
CPR r 24.2
Data Protection Act 1998
DPA 1998
EU GDPR, UK GDPR, DPA 2018
EU GDPR, UK GDPR, DPA 2018
Article 8 ECHR
Article 8 ECHR
Proportionality
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2014] AC 700
Accuracy in Data Protection
DPA 1998 s 70(2), DPA 2018 s 205, NT1 and NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB)
Open Justice
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2020] AC 629
Outcomes
Claim struck out as an abuse of process in relation to alleged unlawful disclosures by CAMHS staff.
The 2016 settlement agreement encompassed claims arising from such disclosures.
Summary judgment granted for the Defendant on remaining claims.
The court found lawful bases for the Defendant's processing and retention of YSL's data under relevant data protection legislation and the Human Rights Act 1998. The 20-year retention period was deemed proportionate. Claims regarding data inaccuracy lacked merit.
Application to restrict access to the judgment denied.
The principle of open justice was prioritized, with YSL's anonymity adequately protected by a pre-existing order.
Similar Cases
Robin Simon Graham Makin (formerly known as X) v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1092 (KB)
Veronica Strain, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
[2023] EWCA Civ 240
Global Processing Services (UK) Limited v Vladimir Yanpolsky & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 425 (KB)
Andrew Prismall v Google UK Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1169 (KB)