The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Peter Nowak over access to memoranda that PwC sent to the Chartered Accountants’ Regulatory Board (CARB) in response to his complaints about two audits.
Mr Justice Coffey ruled on 26 February 2018 that he could find no error of law in the Circuit Court’s decision to uphold the Data Protection Commissioner’s determination that the memoranda did not contain personal data relating to Mr Nowak. The appeal was on a point of law under section 26 of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003. The High Court did not reconsider the Commissioner’s decision afresh.
Mr Nowak had complained to CARB in September 2011, alleging that PwC had not complied with accounting and auditing standards in two audits. He was a trainee at the firm and had taken part in the audits to some extent. PwC sent CARB memoranda addressing the complaints in September 2012.
In July 2013, Mr Nowak asked PwC for copies. The firm refused, saying the memoranda did not contain his personal data. He then complained to the Data Protection Commissioner, arguing that the records related to his complaint and allegations, as well as audit work he had carried out as a PwC employee.
An Assistant Commissioner inspected the memoranda at PwC’s offices and concluded they contained no personal data about Mr Nowak and did not refer to him. The Circuit Court later found that the inspection had taken place and that the material was not his personal data. It dismissed his appeal, finding the Commissioner’s decision reasonable and that Mr Nowak had not met the applicable burden of proof.
In the High Court, the judge inspected the material at the parties’ request. He said the documents contained no data of a personal nature relating to Mr Nowak and did not refer to him. He considered whether the Circuit Court had made a serious and significant error, applying the test derived from *Ulster Bank v McCarren*. Although the judgment noted that Supreme Court judges had indicated the test might be reviewed in a suitable future case, it said that test remained applicable unless and until the Supreme Court reviewed it.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that there was no error of law in the Circuit Court judge’s reasoning or conclusions.