KB-2023-003510 - [2025] EWHC 1755 (KB)

The Defendants’ second overarching submission is that there is no realistic prospect of the court exercising its discretion to make an order pursuant to section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018 on the grounds that all of the factors identified in Ittihadieh are quite clearly in favour of refusing such an order. The Defendant’s Skeleton Argument then goes over each of those grounds.

As to the first, summarised as “More appropriate route to obtaining documents”, the Defendants say there has been extensive disclosure, and indeed full disclosure. To the extent that he seeks documents, the Claimant has already had them. Further, a data subject access request is not an appropriate mechanism for seeking documents. I agree.

As to the second, summarised as “Nature and gravity of the breach”, they say that it is quite clear that The Character Group has complied with its obligations under the Act; and if there was any failure, it would be one at the periphery. I agree with that also.

The third factor relates to the reason for the Claimant having made the data subject access request. The Defendants submit that it is quite clear that the Claimant's motivation is all to do with complaints about the dismissal process, which has already been dealt with, and a refusal to accept the findings of the Employment Tribunal. The Defendants submit - and I agree - that this is exemplified by the language of the Claimant’s letter dated 24 April 2024. For reasons that I have already indicated, it seems to me not only that this is right, but also that in all the circumstances this is not an appropriate or desirable exercise of the Claimant’s data subject access rights.

The next two factors, summarised as “Abuse of rights” and “procedural abuse”, I can take together. The Defendants say that effectively what is happening here is a process of constant reformulation of data subject access requests, with long intervals between the Defendants’ detailed explanation as to how and why they have complied with request and further requests being made, and intimations that there may be yet further proceedings based on the most recent request that has been made on top of the present proceedings, all of which is indicative of abuse. I agree with that.