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

When he was addressing me about this personally at an earlier stage of this hearing, Mr Dowding argued that as the litigation related to him, there must be mention of his name in these documents, and that therefore they must contain his personal data. However, I do not consider that is correct: “Mere mention of the data subject in a document held by a data controller does not necessarily amount to his personal data. Whether it does so in any particular instance depends on where it falls in a continuum of relevance or proximity to the data subject as distinct, say, from transactions or matters in which he may have been involved to a greater or lesser degree.” (Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746, Auld LJ at [28], approved in Ittihadieh at [63]). Further: “it does not follow that every piece of information in a document in which his name appears is his personal information”: Ittihadieh at [93]. Although Mr Dowding’s name may well be mentioned in such billing records and invoices, their focus is far removed from him, and his privacy rights are simply not engaged by that processing.

It is not productive to go over the other 47 classes of document in detail, but those that have been discussed specifically today include classes 12, 13 and 17 in this letter.

Two of those, concerning (1) emails, instructions and documents relating to the Claimant’s conduct, performance and so forth, and (2) emails in relation to Mr Kissane attending a meeting to present the Claimant with allegations of misconduct, fall within the ambit of documents that the Defendants have repeatedly said that they have disclosed to the extent that they exist, and in respect of which there is nothing further to provide, whether by way of data or documents. The third refers to an email dated 1 September 2017 from Mr Shah to Mr Kissane containing a dossier of evidence on the Claimant's conduct. That effectively is the same point over again, because although the Tribunal said at paragraph 142 of their judgment “There was no suggestion that the ‘dossier’ of evidence given to Mr Kissane by Mr Shah was selective or incomplete”, there has never been, on the Defendants’ evidence, a “dossier” as such. There was, of course, a body of documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings and so forth, but the Defendants’ stance is that they have disclosed all of that body of documents.