Data protection essentials

Data protection laws in both the UK and EEA (the EU plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein) are intended to ensure information about living individuals (within the definition of ‘personal data’) is used fairly and responsibly.

To help ensure that, both the UK and EEA data protection laws impose a large number of obligations on those ‘processing’ personal data (and on controllers of such processing) and grant rights to those whose personal data is processed (the ‘data subjects’). In summary, ‘processing’ includes doing almost anything with personal data, including storing, sharing, deleting or using it.

UK data protection law is largely derived from EEA data protection laws and is therefore generally based on similar principles, although there are some detailed differences.

This subtopic provides certain core resources commonly required by commercial lawyers when addressing UK and EEA data protection laws under:

•
the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) regime, which applies under the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

IMA welcomes Home Office policy change on pre-settled status retention for domestic abuse victims

The Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (IMA) has reported on the Home Office’s updated policy, which allows EU, EEA and EFTA citizens to retain pre-settled status while simultaneously holding immigration status under domestic abuse routes (as well as other domestic immigration routes). The changes apply retrospectively and are supported by updated caseworker guidance. Although the eVisa digital status system displays only a citizen’s most recent status, the Home Office confirms that pre-settled status information remains accessible through other systems such as the Employer Checking Service and Landlord Checking Service. The IMA welcomes the changes but notes it will continue working with the Home Office to understand the revised policy, assess alignment with the Citizens’ Rights Agreements and maintain stakeholder engagement. It notes that there had been a judicial review on the issue, on which it had been granted permission to intervene in, but that was withdrawn by the Claimant before the IMA had filed its written submissions.

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

MoJ introduces Public Office (Accountability) Bill with new duty of candour for officials

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill to Parliament. The legislation would create a new professional and legal duty of candour for public officials, backed by criminal sanctions for serious breaches. It would establish non-means tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests, introduce a new criminal offence for misleading the public, and require legal spending by public bodies at inquests to be proportionate. The measures aim to prevent institutional concealment of facts following public disasters and scandals, applying to all public bodies and officials.

Weekly round-up of EU-UK TCA Specialised Committees’ publications—15 September 2025

This round-up includes details of publications made by Specialised Committees established by the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) for the period from 8-14 September 2025.