Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc

Information kept in unstructured manual files is not “data” under the Data Protection Act 1998 merely because modern technology could make it searchable. For manual information to qualify, it must form part of a relevant filing system structured so that information about a particular individual is readily accessible. Whether information is data is assessed when the data request is made. Further, information mentioning an individual is not necessarily that individual’s personal data. The court must consider its relevance and proximity to the individual, whether it is biographical and focused on that individual, and whether it affects the individual’s privacy.

The claimant sought disclosure from Lloyds under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He argued that notes and memoranda held in files concerning a company’s borrowing were his personal data and evidenced an alleged oral agreement for long-term finance. Lloyds retained no computerised records relating to him, and the relevant documents were held in unstructured bundles. The issues were whether the material constituted data, whether it constituted personal data, and whether an order should be made under section 7(9).

1. The claim was dismissed. The material sought did not constitute “data” within the Data Protection Act 1998.
2. Information is data under section 1(1)(c) only where it forms part of, or is intended to form part of, a relevant filing system. Following the approach in Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746, a manual system must be sufficiently structured to permit easy access to information specific to the data subject. Unstructured bundles do not qualify.
3. The court rejected the argument that documents should be treated as data because they had once been processed automatically. The relevant question is whether, at the date of the request, the information was wholly or partly held by automatic equipment. The court followed its earlier reasoning in Johnson v Medical Defence Union [2004] EWHC 347 on that temporal issue.
4. The availability of scanning and indexing technology did not make an unstructured pile of documents a relevant filing system. That construction would remove the statutory distinction between automatically processed information and information kept in a relevant filing system. It was also inconsistent with the policy reflected in Article 3 and recital 27 of Directive 95/46/EC, under which unstructured manual files fall outside the relevant scope.
5. Alternatively, the documents were not Mr Smith’s personal data. Applying the guidance in Durant v Financial Services Authority, the documents concerned loans to DEL and the alleged terms of finance for that company. Mr Smith’s involvement and references to him did not make the material sufficiently biographical, focused on him, or private in the relevant sense.
6. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 7(9), or whether the request was an attempt to reopen issues determined in earlier proceedings.