David Fox v Office of Data Protection Commissioner
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MICHAEL PEART |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] IEHC 49 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 05 February 2013 |
[2013] IEHC 49
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN:
AND
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S10(1)(B)(i)
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S10(1)
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S10
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S1
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S26
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S26(1)(D)
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S10(1)(A)
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S10(2)
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1988 S10(1)(B)(ii)
NOWAK v DATA PROTECTION CMSR 2013 1 ILRM 207 2012 IEHC 449
Data protection – Data Protection Commissioner – Complaints to – Appellant”s complaints deemed to be ‘frivolous or vexatious –S 10 Data Protection Act 1998
Facts: The appellant had made two complaints to the Data Protection Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner considered the complaints to be frivolous and/or vexatious in nature, and had notified the appellant accordingly referring to s 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (s 10’). The appellant had appealed this decision to the Circuit Court, which had held there was no jurisdiction to consider an appeal of this nature. The appellant now appealed to the High Court.
Held by Peart J, that the reference in s 10 to a decision was intended to refer to the substantive decision following an investigation. Any right of appeal of a decision specified in other sections of the Act related to this substantive decision, and not a decision that the claim was vexatious. The Circuit Court had correctly determined the matter and the appeal would be dismissed. Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner [2012] IEHC 449; [2012] 3 JIC 0702 adopted.
MR JUSTICE MICHAEL PEART DELIVERED ON THE 5th DAY OF FERUARY 2013:
1. A net issue of statutory interpretation arises in this case where the applicant's two complaints made to the Data Protection Commissioner by letters dated respectively 10 th December 2010 and 19 th January 2011 were considered by the Commissioner to come within the provisions of Section 10(l)(b)(i) of the Data Protection Act 1998 as amended ("the Act") i.e. that they are considered to be "frivolous or vexatious", and accordingly a letter was written to the applicant by the Commissioner's office to inform him of this opinion on the part of the Commissioner to inform the applicant that they would not enter into any further correspondence on the issues raised.
2. Section 10 (1) of the Act, as amended provides:
2 "(1) (a) - The Commissioner may investigate, or cause to be investigated, whether any of the provisions of this Act have been, are being or are likely to be contravened in relation to an individual either where the individual complains to him of a contravention of any of those provisions or he is otherwise of opinion that there may be such a contravention.
(b) Where a complaint is made to the Commissioner under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the Commissioner shall -
(i) investigate the complaint or cause it to be investigated, unless he is of opinion that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner
...the decision of the Commissioner. This carefully reasoned decision has itself been followed in Fox v. The Data Protection Commissioner [2013] I.E.H.C. 49, (Unreported, High Court, Peart J., 5th February, 2013). Meanwhile, the decision of the High Court in this case was appealed by Mr Nowak......
-
Data Protection Update
...in Nowak was recently followed, on 5 February 2013, by Peart J. in the High Court in Fox v The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner [2013] IEHC 49. Peart J., who dealt only with the net issue of the statutory interpretation of s. 10(1)(b)(ii), held that the reference in that section t......