The High Court dismissed Aimee Scott’s judicial review claim against the Data Protection Commissioner after finding that the claim had become moot: the Commissioner had issued decisions on both complaints at the centre of the case.
Mr Justice Barr’s judgment, delivered on 5 December 2019, concerned an application by the Commissioner to strike out proceedings brought over delay in deciding two complaints Scott had lodged in 2017. She had been granted leave to seek an order of mandamus requiring decisions, but that earlier order gave her permission to bring judicial review proceedings; it did not direct the Commissioner to take action.
One complaint alleged that Scott’s former employer, Mason Technology Limited, had disclosed a confidential GP report to occupational health firm Medmark without her permission and had asked Medmark to contact her GP. The other concerned disclosures of her personal data to IBEC and Mason’s refusal to provide some documents, relying on legal professional privilege.
The Commissioner issued a decision on the medical disclosure complaint on 18 April 2019 and on the IBEC communications complaint on 20 May 2019. Scott disputed aspects of both decisions. Among other points, she argued that the Commissioner had accepted Mason’s account about its interactions with IBEC without obtaining documents held by IBEC or investigating whether further records existed.
The Commissioner argued that the proceedings sought only decisions on the complaints, and that both had now issued. Scott said the decisions did not resolve the substance of her complaints because, in her view, the investigations had been inadequate.
Justice Barr held that the judicial review grounds were confined to delay and the failure to issue decisions. Scott had not applied for, or received leave to pursue, judicial review on grounds challenging the decisions themselves. Because the Commissioner had issued reasoned decisions on both complaints, the relief sought in these proceedings had been provided and the claim was moot.
The court dismissed the claim on that basis. It did not decide the Commissioner’s separate argument that a statutory appeal was the proper route. Justice Barr said that issue was not raised in the notice of motion and should not be determined on this interlocutory application.
The judgment noted that Scott had appealed the decision concerning complaint 3/17/662. For any challenge to the decision on complaint 3/17/849, it said she would need to seek an extension of time to appeal or apply separately for leave to bring judicial review. The court also recorded that the outcome of her application to expand the grounds of the Circuit Court appeal was unknown.