It seems that there is a principle which /can/ be taken from the case,
but it is not one which was used to determine the case, therefore it is
obiter, and persuasive precedent only.,
That principle is that where information is taken from manual files and
input into a computer system WHETHER THAT WAS A 'RELEVANT MANUAL SYSTEM'
or not, then it is "processing" under the Act.
The case itself seems to turn on the facts, not the law.
If I interpret the case correctly, there was some fair processing and
some unfair processing by the MDU. But the unfair processing was not in
respect of the 'lead files' and therefore did not cause Mr Johnson's
termination of membership. His claim therefore failed.
Does anyone agree (or disagree with this summary?)
Nigel
--
Nigel Roberts FBCS
Nigel Roberts wrote:
> Ansering two of my own questions.
>
> [2006] EWHC 321
> and High Court
>
>
> Tim Trent wrote:
>
>> It seems that the crux of the case did not turn on any DPA claim, though?
>> More on the fact that it appeared to Mr Justice Rimer that the case for
>> damages per se was insufficiently proven
>>
>> The result of the case is "I dismiss Mr Johnson's (abandoned) claim under
>> section 10 of the DPA. I dismiss his claim for compensation under section
>> 13. I dismiss his claim that the MDU committed a breach of the fifth data
>> protection principle. I will hear counsel as to the form of the order I
>> should make and as to what is to happen to Mr Johnson's claim under
>> section
>> 14 (the Schedule II claim)."
>> Can someone with formal legal knowledge interpret what precedent, if
>> any, is
>> set by this case, please?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Duncan Smith
>> Sent: 20 March 2006 11:11
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Durant - Can I ignore it?
>>
>> For another take on relevant filing systems, don't forget to have a
>> look at
>> the latest case law as Mr. Paul Johnson takes the Medical Defence Union
>> (MDU) to the High Court.
>>
>> Justice Rimer has some interesting points re manual files and microfiche
>> (they're not covered by DPA), BUT the data they contain has been
>> PROCESSED,
>> and should therefore be obtained fairly.
>>
>> It's complex, and for the insomniacs and Sado masochists, here's the full
>> transcript.
>>
>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/321.html
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Duncan Smith
>>
>> Director
>> iCompli Limited
>> Silverstone Innovation Centre | Silverstone Circuit | Northants | NN12
>> 8GX
>>
>> t: 01327 856 200
>> t: 08707 70 48 66
>> f: 01327 856 001
>> m: 07775 56 81 80
>> e: [log in to unmask]
>> Web: www.icompli.co.uk
>> Travel: Directions to iCompli Ltd.
>>
>> Compliance in your languageT
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Graeme Hawley
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:16 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [data-protection] Durant - Can I ignore it?
>>
>> Sorry to bring up Durant again.
>>
>> I think that I have understood that Durant allows a data contoller to
>> take a
>> very narrow definition of relevant paper filing systems (leaving aside
>> the
>> FOI affected public authorities for the minute). But does Durant stop a
>> Data Contoller from applying a broader definition if they so wish. In
>> other
>> words, just because Durant allows the pusillanimous organisation the
>> opportunity to discount folders with names on (but sinfully arranged in
>> chronological order - what's that all about?), does the Durant ruling
>> mean
>> that a sturdier organisation is forbidden to go that gruelling extra
>> mile,
>> and, for example, fish out an individuals personnel file from the
>> alphabetically arranged sequence of names in response to that
>> individual's
>> request for access.
>>
>> As it happens, I work for a public authority so am covered by FOISA
>> and its
>> wider definition of relevant filing system anyway. Ironically, we do
>> hold
>> information which I would like to apply a narrower definition to, but
>> FOISA
>> means we cant. We hold upwards of 50 million pages of manuscripts in our
>> library collection, many of which contain personal data. Despite the
>> best
>> efforts of our staff to catalogue these, my guess is that they would more
>> than classify as unstructured data not held in a relevant filing
>> system. But because of FOISA, they are covered by access legislation,
>> and all of the
>> various problems this creates (such as the theoretical possibility
>> that we
>> may have to spend an unlimited amount of time and resources searching for
>> the existance of a persons name in tens of thousands of paper documents -
>> remembering that the FOISA charging structure does not include time spent
>> establishing whether the information is held or not).
>>
>> Is it me?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
>>
>>
>>
>> available to the world wide web community at large at
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
>>
>>
>>
>> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
>>
>>
>>
>> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> All user commands can be found at : -
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list
>> owner
>>
>>
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
>>
>>
>>
>> available to the world wide web community at large at
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
>>
>>
>>
>> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
>>
>>
>>
>> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> All user commands can be found at : -
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list
>> owner
>>
>>
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
>>
>>
>>
>> available to the world wide web community at large at
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
>>
>>
>>
>> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
>>
>>
>>
>> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> All user commands can be found at : -
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list
>> owner
>>
>>
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
>>
>>
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
