How can we help?


Failing to anonymise – the cost

A woman has received £75,000 in an out-of-court settlement after details of domestic abuse she had suffered were revealed by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) without her permission.

In 2014, the woman agreed with the GMP that it could use her experience in a training session for police officers and support agencies. She hoped this would help improve the support given to victims of domestic violence in the future but gave her consent on the understanding that the materials would be anonymised.

However, she later discovered that her identity and medical history had been disclosed in full and to a wider audience.  Also, those attending the session heard a recording of a 999 call she had made after she had been assaulted.

The woman alleged that she had suffered psychiatric harm and brought a claim for misuse of private information, breach of confidential information and non-compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

GMP admitted breaching her privacy but refused to admit that she was entitled to any damages (arguing that she had suffered no loss).  However, just days before the hearing, it settled out-of-court for £75,000.

GMP admitted breaching her privacy but refused to admit that she was entitled to any damages (arguing that she had suffered no loss).

This is believed to be one of the largest payments by a British force in a privacy case and serves as a reminder that employers should ensure that they have adequate training in place on data protection obligations .  Mistakes in this area can prove to be costly.  Earlier this year, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust was fined £180,000 after it revealed the email addresses of 781 users of an HIV service.

For useful data protection factsheets, checklists and templates, please visit

For further advice on how to protect your business against data protection and privacy claims, please contact our employment lawyers on

About this article


This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 19 July 2024
  • Immigration

UK Immigration Rules for Business Visitors: Flexibility and Controversies

The UK’s immigration rules have changed significantly in the past five years and have introduced greater flexibility for non-EEA nationals who wish to visit the UK as business visitors.

  • 17 July 2024
  • Commercial Real Estate

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024: what does it mean for my leasehold property? 

The leasehold system in the UK has been subject to some unfavourable press for some time now.

  • 15 July 2024
  • Privacy and Data Protection

The duty to protect third parties: is your DSAR response compliant?

Responding to a data subject access request (DSAR) may feel like a daunting process. It requires a solid understanding of the data subject’s rights, and of the meaning of personal data.

  • 10 July 2024
  • Employment

Redundancy : Back to Basics FAQs

Redundancy can be a scary and overwhelming time both for employees being made redundant, and for those that have to make the decision. It is important for both parties to know their rights and obligations in this time.

  • 09 July 2024
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Buyer Beware: Practical Guidance for Breach of Warranty in an SPA

Are you buying a business? Whether you are buying shares in a company or purchasing its assets… the general Latin common law principle “caveat emptor” applies.

  • 08 July 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Navigating corporate transparency: ECCTA reforms series

This is the second article in a series exploring the changes brought by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA).