The controversial political/business figure President Donald J Trump is again in the headlines involving being prosecuted in the USA for a significant number of criminal charges.
No doubt in a bid to secure some leverage against that prosecution, Mr Trump has started data protection proceedings in England against a London based Intelligence company called Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd alleging that a dossier, known as the Steele Dossier, which alleges nefarious activities by Mr Trump and goes as far as to allege some sexual perversions, contains factually inaccurate data.
The case was listed for an application hearing for two days on 15 October 2023 to hear the Defendants’ application to strike out the claim in which the Defendants allege that:
- The claim was brought too late;
- The damage caused was as a result of a publication by Buzzfeed rather than the Steele Dossier itself; and
- That the proceedings were brought for an improper purpose.
Judgment has been reserved and will be released at a later date so Mr Trump will have to wait to see if he has the opportunity to give evidence at a final trial or whether his claim is struck out.
Mr Trump is reported to have said in a witness statement in support of his position:
“A judgment of the English court on this issue will be an immense relief to me as it will completely confirm the true position to the public at large. Until there is such a judgment, I continue to suffer damage and distress as a result of people wrongfully believing that the data in the dossier is accurate.”
Comment
The writer’s initial reaction reading the reports in the press about this case was to consider why the claim of defamation was not pursued, as the allegations seem to fit with such a cause of action and in such cases, the burden of proof would have rested with the Defendant to prove the truth of the statements made, unlike in a data protection claim where the burden will be and has been accepted by him to be on Mr Trump. Whilst the Court judgment is not available in respect of the recently heard application, the writer surmises that this is probably because the limitation period (i.e. the period within which proceedings must be issued) for defamation claims is only one year and so such a claim is likely to be substantially out of time.
Whilst this is a very high-profile case seeking to use data protection legislation to correct alleged inaccuracies, the writer’s team regularly deals with disputes involving inaccuracies in records kept by organisations such as social services, which can and do have serious implications for the client’s family and/or working life.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in commercial disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us