Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 JANUARY 2014

UK High Court Defines Tests To Determine If Data Is Personal

Reed Smith (Worldwide)
Explore more from Reed Smith (Worldwide)

The UK High Court was forced to re-examine the concept of ‘personal data’ in the recent case of Kelway v The Upper Tribunal, Northumbria Police and the Information Commissioner (2013) EWHC 2575 (Admin).

United KingdomPrivacy
Cynthia O'Donoghue
Cynthia O'Donoghue
Author LinkedIn connections

The UK High Court was forced to re-examine the concept of 'personal data' in the recent case of Kelway v The Upper Tribunal, Northumbria Police and the Information Commissioner (2013) EWHC 2575 (Admin). The case involved an application for judicial review by Dr Kelway against two decisions of the Upper Tribunal refusing a request for disclosure of information by Northumbria Police, who were investigating a complaint by Dr Kelway that a district judge had committed a serious criminal offence by arranging for a tape of court proceedings to be tampered with. Dr Kelway had requested information from the district judge's statement given to police officers investigating the alleged criminal offence. Dr Kelway challenged that any references to the district judge in the statement were not biological and did not have him as their focus, and therefore were not personal data and should be disclosed to him without consent of the district judge.  In determining to refuse the grant

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ten AI Giants, One Regulator And A Lesson For Everyone Else: What The ICO’s Foundation Model Report Really Tells Us

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has completed its supervision of major AI foundation model developers, revealing significant gaps in data protection practices and setting new expectations for legitimate interests assessments, transparency, and special category data handling. The regulator has now turned its attention to agentic AI systems, warning that autonomy is not an excuse for poor compliance and launching a call for evidence that will shape future regulatory guidance.
United KingdomPrivacy
Burges Salmon LLP
Burges Salmon LLP
Article

To Fine Or Not To Fine: EDPB Confirms Default Position In GDPR Enforcement Should Be To Fine

The European Data Protection Board has published draft guidelines proposing a fundamental shift in GDPR enforcement: a presumption that fines should be imposed for non-minor infringements, with a deliberately low bar for establishing negligence. Organizations will need to demonstrate robust compliance programs and documented decision-making to potentially avoid penalties, as regulators move from asking "should we fine?" to "can we justify not fining?"
GlobalPrivacy
Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Article

ICO Cookie Crackdown 2.0: The ICO’s New Storage And Access Technologies Guidance

The UK Information Commissioner's Office has finalized its guidance on storage and access technologies, expanding compliance requirements beyond traditional cookies to include tracking pixels, device fingerprinting, and web storage. Organizations must now navigate stricter consent standards and three new narrow exceptions introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, while facing significantly increased enforcement penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover.
United KingdomPrivacy
ZwillGen
ZwillGen
Article

European Commission Press Release: EU AI Act Transparency Enforcement Starts This Sunday! Do You Know Who Your Chatbots Are? We Break Down The Commission’s Guidelines On Transparency Below

The European Commission has announced that EU AI Act transparency rules take effect August 2, 2026, requiring chatbots to identify themselves, deepfakes to be labeled, and AI-generated content to be marked. Organizations must assess whether their AI systems trigger disclosure, labeling, or content-marking requirements, with limited exceptions and penalties reaching €15 million or 3% of global turnover for noncompliance.
GlobalPrivacy
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP