Our People
Paper star
Cutting Through Complexity

“To disclose or not to disclose – that is the key question”…

17th December 2015

In Part 1 of our series we wrote about what to do when you receive a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1996 (“DPA”). Now turning to your response to a request, the DPA provides exemptions which you may be able to apply in order to withhold certain types personal data. The most common exemptions which may apply are:

  1. Confidential references given by the data controller. A ‘request’ must however be complied with in relation to a reference received by a data controller (for example, a new employer), subject of course to the rules on disclosure of third party information.
  2. Personal data processed in connection with management forecasting or planning, to the extent that any disclosure would prejudice the conduct of the business. i.e if information on a staff redundancy programme is disclosed in advance of it being announced to the rest of the workforce.
  3. Personal data relating to negotiations between the data controller and the employee, to the extent that any disclosure would be likely to prejudice those negotiations i.e. any internal pre-settlement discussions relating to the company’s intention/position, before a settlement has been signed.
  4. Personal data subject to legal professional privilege. Legal advice privilege covers confidential communication between a lawyer and their client for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. Litigation privilege would apply where the communication comes into existence for the dominant purpose of being used in connection with actual or pending litigation. Neither of these are likely to apply if a lawyer is just being ‘cc-ed’ into emails in the hope that it will apply!

Summary: It is important to keep a detailed record of all data which was identified as being within scope, data disclosed and data not disclosed. Keep a clear record of why certain data has not been disclosed and the exemption applied. If contested, this evidence and your reasoning will be key.

Although a recent case held that disclosure was not required where it was not reasonable or proportionate to carry out the search for personal data, this runs very much contrary to the general stance taken by the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”). We would advise that taking such a position is risky; the employee making the request may very well challenge your position with the ICO and the time and costs involved in dealing with the challenge may outweigh the savings you might have made in not responding to the request.

 

The contents of this newsletter are intended as guidance for readers. It can be no substitute for specific advice. Consequently we cannot accept responsibility for this information, errors or matters affected by subsequent changes in the law, or the content of any website referred to in this newsletter. © Mundays LLP 2015.

Latest News

Gross Misconduct and Statutory Notice
Thursday 12th July 2018

Sophie Banks looks back at a recent bulletin and the EAT judgement handed down last week

Read More

Directors’ Addresses – Privacy Extended
Friday 6th July 2018

Fiona Moss describes the proposals to allow removal of historic personal information from Companies House as identity theft increases and data privacy hits headlines

Read More

The long-term funding of adult social care
Friday 29th June 2018

Howard White provides an update on the joint report from the Health and Social Care and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committees on the long-term funding of adult social care

Read More