![[2023] UKUT 132 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Ground 4 – law of agency
Ground 4 – law of agency
This ground is that the Tribunal “erred in law by refusing to allow itself to be informed by the law of agency in deciding whether a controller bears legal responsibility for the actions of a processor”, despite:
the GDPR’s repeated references to a processor ‘acting on behalf of’ a controller, which are “coincident with the accepted phraseology describing an agency relationship”;
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to refuse this appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, taken on 9 August 2021, under file reference EA/2020/0065/V, did not involve an error on a point o
- Meaning of terms used in these reasons
- The main issue of wider interest: summary of conclusion
- Background
- First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- Agreed facts
- Tribunal’s general role
- Burden of proof
- Standard of proof
- Relevance of law of agency
- General conclusions
- Whether a MPN was appropriate
- Penalty amount
- Legislative framework
- Data Protection Act 2018
- giving “careful attention” to the Commissioner’s reasons for imposing the MPN
- Ground 1 - arguments
- there is the potential for significant financial implications, but deprivation of liberty is not an issue
- the Commissioner’s work is clearly very important since he seeks to protect the fundamental rights of data subjects
- Ground 2 – reliance on Hope & Glory
- licensing authority sub-committees are comprised of elected individuals who are answerable to their electors Ground 2 –arguments
- Ground 3 – civil or criminal standard of proof
- Ground 3 – the arguments
- the term “satisfied”, in section 155(1)(a), DPA is relevant to the burden of proof not the standard
- Ground 4 – law of agency
- making a controller legally responsible for the acts of its processor is consistent with an agency relationship; and
- Ground 4 – the arguments
- Ground 5 – Tribunal’s reliance on breach of Article 24(1)
- The arguments
- Ground 6 – considerations relevant to amount of penalty
- rejected the Appellant’s argument that the breach documents originated from care homes when there was no countervailing evidence
- failed to deal with the points made in the Appellant’s skeleton argument at paragraphs 56(5) and (7) to (11)
- The arguments
- paragraph 56 of the skeleton argument . The Tribunal did not disregard the submission that the Commissioner’s finding of careless storage was contradicted by CCTV evidence (see paragraphs 65(xi) and 8
- Ground seven – the arguments
- Conclusions
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- I do not understand why the ultimate destination of monies paid to satisfy a MPN should be of any relevance to its essential character or why it should tend to show that MPN proceedings have the ‘seri
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Ground 7
- Conclusions