(1) In this Part, “controller” means the competent authority which, alone or jointly with others—
(a)determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data, or
(b)is the controller by virtue of subsection (2).
(2)Where personal data is processed only—
(a)for purposes for which it is required by an enactment to be processed, and
(b)by means by which it is required by an enactment to be processed,
the competent authority on which the obligation to process the data is imposed by the enactment (or, if different, one of the enactments) is the controller.
(3) In this Part, “processor” means any person who processes personal data on behalf of the controller (other than a person who is an employee of the controller).
Cases considering section 32 3
[2021] EWCA Civ 42 · 19 January 2021Interprets
Defined a data processor as a person processing data on a controller’s behalf, other than an employee. The court treated onward dissemination as more naturally a controller act. (see paras [36], [43])
[2022] EWHC 2500 (KB) · 10 October 2022Defines
Section 32 was used to identify the controller for Part 3 processing. The relevant competent authority was the CPS through the Director of Public Prosecutions. (see paras [87]-[90])
Section 32(2) was set out as an alternative controller provision where processing is required by enactment. The court did not need to determine that alternative on the facts. (see para [88])
[2019] EWHC 975 (Admin) · 15 April 2019Defines
The defendant was a data controller when it passed the claimant’s information to BCRP. The court considered BCRP’s status but held that the controller duties applied at the point of transfer. (see paras [54]; [88]-[89])
The court considered whether BCRP was a processor acting for the defendant, but regarded joint or separate controller status as the more natural analysis. (see paras [54]; [88])
What each judgment says about section 32 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.