Aimee Scott -v- Data Protection Commissioner (No. 2)

• Judge: O'Connor, John J.
• Judgment Date: 17 November 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IECC 5
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Date: 02 September 2021
• Docket Number: 2021/04468
• Court: http://justis.com/court/2781

1

AN CHÚIRT CHUARDA

THE CIRCUIT COURT

DUBLIN CIRCUIT COUNTY OF CITY OF DUBLIN

Record No. 2021/04468

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 150(5) OF

THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018

Between:

AIMEE SCOTT

APPELLANT

-and-

DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER (NO. 2)

RESPONDENT

Judgment of His Honour Judge John O’Connor delivered on the 17th day of November,

2022

1. Introduction:

1.1 The Appellant, Aimee Scott (Ms. Scott), appeals a decision of the Respondent (the

Commissioner) dated the 2 September 2021. The complaint, which formed the basis of the

decision, concerned the disclosure of information by a Barrister to a law firm, for the purpose

of a conflict-of-interest test. The disclosure is said to have taken place in advance of the end of

June 2018. Therefore, the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) determined that the General

Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to the complaint.

2. Background to the Complaint:

2.1 The Barrister in question represented the Appellant in an employment dispute. Some

two years later, the Appellant appeared before the Workplace Relations Commission in relation

2

to an unrelated employment dispute. The Barrister was instructed by a solicitor firm to act

against the Appellant. Prior to accepting instructions from the law firm, the Barrister disclosed

that she had acted for the Appellant in an unrelated employment matter two years previously.

The law firm instructed the Barrister. At the hearing at the Workplace Relations Commission,

the Appellant objected to the Barrister’s presence as she believed the Barrister was in

possession of information, obtained from previous proceedings, which could be used to the

Appellant’s disadvantage in these proceedings.

2.2 The Appellant subsequently wrote to the solicitor firm who instructed the Barrister,

asking them to outline what steps they had taken to ensure they were fulfilling their legal

obligations in assessing any conflicts of interest. The firm responded by way of letter, outlining

the following:

“[The Barrister] disclosed that she had acted for you in an employment law matter two

years previously in respect of a different and unrelated employer. She stated she no

longer holds papers in this previous matter and had returned them to her instructing

solicitor.”

2.3 The Appellant lodged a complaint with the DPC alleging that the Barrister disclosed to

the law firm that she previously acted for the Appellant in litigation, the subject matter of same

and the time period, and that this amounted to a breach of the GDPR.

3. Summary of the Complaint sent by the Appellant to the DPC:

3.1 The Appellant’s complaint states that a Barrister disclosed personal information to a

solicitor’s firm. The Appellant states this resulted in disclosing private and confidential

information about her to a third party without permission, gained through a position of

privilege. The Appellant states this disclosure was a breach of her data privacy and general data