Key Facts
- •Donald Trump sued Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd for data protection breaches related to the Steele Dossier.
- •The claim focused on two memoranda containing allegedly inaccurate personal data about Trump.
- •Trump sought to amend his claim to include a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998).
- •Orbis applied to strike out the claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable grounds and/or was an abuse of process.
- •The case involved complex issues of limitation periods, amendment rules, and the interpretation of data protection legislation.
Legal Principles
Amendment of a statement of case after service requires consent of all parties or court permission.
CPR 17.1
Court may allow amendment adding a new claim if it arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims, even if limitation period expired.
CPR 17.4
In considering CPR 17.4 amendments, a four-stage test is applied: (i) reasonably arguable that amendments are outside the limitation period; (ii) amendments add/substitute a new cause of action; (iii) new cause of action arises out of same/substantially the same facts; (iv) Court exercises discretion to allow amendment.
Mullaley & Co Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 32
A claim form, read with the particulars of claim, can be interpreted to correct obvious clerical errors to clarify internal inconsistencies, not to add new claims.
Evans v Cig Mon Cymru [2008] 1 WLR 2675
Court may strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or is an abuse of process.
CPR 3.4(2)
Summary judgment may be granted if a party has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
CPR 24.2
In data protection claims, compensation is only available for damage suffered as a result of a contravention or infringement of the legislation.
Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50
Outcomes
Trump's application to amend his claim to include a DPA 1998 claim was refused.
The proposed amendment added a new cause of action that did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim, and the limitation period had expired.
Orbis's application for summary judgment was granted.
Trump had no real prospect of succeeding on his remaining claims for compensation or a compliance order because the alleged distress did not stem from the remaining act of processing (retention and storage after May 25, 2018), and nominal damages are not available under the relevant legislation.
Parts of the Particulars of Claim were struck out.
These parts related to the DPA 1998 claim (which was dismissed) or were inconsistent with the remaining claim.