Search

How can we help?

Icon

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 employmentbuddy.com

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

About this article

Disclaimer

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

art
  • 09 December 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

UK Directors’ Responsibilities

On becoming a director of a company, directors undertake to comply with various duties and responsibilities. which are specified in the Companies Act 2006. In this article, we will explain how you can comply with these practical responsibilities.

art
  • 09 December 2024
  • Commercial Real Estate

What happens to a sublease when the headlease is surrendered, forfeited or disclaimed?

The intermediate tenant under the headlease falls away and the tenant under the sublease becomes the direct tenant of the superior landlord.

art
  • 09 December 2024
  • Employment

Mistletoe and Missteps: Preventing Harassment at Christmas Parties

As the festive season approaches, offices are coming together for their annual Christmas parties, offering a chance to unwind and celebrate the year’s achievements. However, whilst these events provide a necessary release and recognition of employee’s contributions, they also present a heightened risk of inappropriate behaviour, particularly sexual harassment.

art
  • 03 December 2024
  • Immigration

UPDATE – Ministers to postpone full eVisa rollout amid fears of UK residents being stranded abroad

The UK government will postpone the full transition to eVisas, initially planned for 1 January 2025, following concerns that system glitches could leave UK residents stranded abroad.

art
  • 02 December 2024
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Era of AI

In this recent case, the First-Tier Tribunal gave a stark warning to litigants about use of AI in litigation.

art
  • 28 November 2024
  • Employment

Employment Rights Bill: The Regulatory Policy Committee opinion

This article considers the Regulatory Policy Committee’s recently published opinion on the impact assessments for the Employment Rights Bill. The Committee assessed the quality of evidence and analysis used to inform the government proposals and came to the overall opinion that the impact assessments are currently “not fit for purpose”.