Child Abuse Law
  • Home
    • About
  • Case Law
  • CICA Claims
  • Contact
  • Blog
 sEE                                                    DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL V DUNN [2012] EWCA Civ 1654 
 
In this case, the Court of Appeal laid down useful guidelines for courts dealing with this kind of problem. The Claimant was a resident at Aycliffe Young People’s Centre in Newton Aycliffe between 1980 and 1984, which was run by the Defendant council. He made a claim for damages in respect of assaults alleged to have been committed by staff at the Centre when he was there in the early 1980s. At first the Defendant would only disclose his personal records from Aycliffe, but at a case management conference, they were ordered by a District Judge to provide further disclosure, providing certain parts of the records were redacted. This order was overturned on appeal. The judge ordered that all records should be disclosed as unredacted. The Council appealed to the Court of Appeal.  Kay LJ said that it was misleading to refer to a duty to protect data as if it were a category of exemption from disclosure or inspection, and the Data Protection Act 1998 was a distraction in these circumstances. The true position was that Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules, read as a whole, enabled and required the court to excuse disclosure or inspection on public interest grounds. There was no longer any public interest immunity attaching to social services records. Section 35 of the 1998 Act exempted a data controller from the non-disclosure provisions where disclosure was required in the context of litigation. In effect, it left it to the court to determine the issue by the application of the appropriate balancing exercise under the umbrella of the CPR, whereupon the court’s decision impacted upon the operation of disclosure under the 1998 Act.  See report here.
 

Contact Us

    Subscribe to Updates Today!

Submit

The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed.  In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so.  It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such.   To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material.    Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.

  • Home
    • About
  • Case Law
  • CICA Claims
  • Contact
  • Blog