We acted in the case of Ali v Luton Borough Council, a reported case and the first application by the courts of the leading decision in the Morrisons case.
An employee worked for the local authority’s social services department as a Contact Assessment Worker.
Her role was to supervise and assess contact sessions between children and adults in circumstances where, under the relevant legislation, the defendant was under a legal duty to safeguard the child’s emotional or physical wellbeing.
The employee had access to the social services records held on the defendant’s computer system. She was not, however, working on any files relating to the claimant or her children at any time.
Whilst she was at work, she accessed records relating to the claimant’s police complaint about her ex-husband. The images/documents were sent or shown to the husband, who told others within the community.
The claimant became concerned for her safety and alleged that she suffered distress and anxiety.
The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant, alleging that it was liable for the employee’s actions, which it was common ground had breached the claimant’s rights under the General Data Protection Regulations (EU 2016/679), at common law and under the Human Rights Act 1998. There was a personal injury element in the form of a claim for psychiatric injury.
The Judge rejected the claimant’s arguments. It concluded that the different approach adopted in the sexual abuse cases was a ‘principled’ one which focuses on the fact that the wrongdoer is the very person to whom the defendant has entrusted the care, custody, or education of the victim. It is not enough, however, for the employment to present the wrongdoer with the opportunity to abuse their position, however sensitive the subject matter they are tasked to deal with.
This is an important case with ramifications for local authorities and their data in cases where injury, distress or anxiety has been sustained.
