The claimant brought claims based upon breach of contract, unlawful processing of personal data and human rights breaches against the defendant, her employer.  The decision related to the defendant’s attempt to have the claims struck out.

The issue arose in August 2018 when the claimant was arrested in relation to a number of matters including a serious sexual offence. The claimant had disclosed the fact that she was arrested to her line manager and this was disclosed internally to other managerial staff and the press office.  As a result, the claimant was suspended from work and a disciplinary investigation was commenced.   The claimant then went on sick leave and asked for the suspension and investigation to be halted and also stated that the investigation was in breach of GDPR.   It was not until December that the investigation continued and the claimant attended an interview whereupon she stated that the contractual requirement to disclose information relating to the arrest was unlawful and that there were breaches relating to processing of her personal data.   This accusation was made on the basis that the arrest should be deemed a ‘special category of personal data’ under Article 10 of GDPR and that the defendant had failed to establish a lawful basis for the data to be processed.

The High Court held that the claimant’s contractual obligation to inform the employer in relation to the arrest and offences was allowed.  This also made it clear that the criminal offence data may then be processed in various circumstances within the course of employment.  This may be to investigate potential misconduct or to undertake disciplinary proceedings.  The claimant further challenged the decision to suspend stating that other alternatives should have been examined.  Steyn J held that as the allegations against the claimant were serious the defendant was well within its right to commence an investigation and to suspend the claimant pending an outcome.  In terms of disciplinary action taking place as a result of action outside the workplace, the High Court held that the defendant was within its right.  This was especially so considering the seriousness of the allegation but also due the fact that a car hired for the purpose of work was allegedly used in relation to one of the offences.    Furthermore, there was no prospect of the claimant establishing that using the personal data for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings was unlawful.  For this reason, the various claims were struck out with one slight caveat.   The court was unable to make a determination on whether the suspension should have been reviewed or whether it should have been shorter.  For that reason, the claim could continue on that basis.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the way in which the court will deal with allegations in relation to GDPR when it concerns an employment investigation.  The fact that the allegations were of a serious nature as well as the contractual basis that allowed for the information to be internally shared meant that the claimant’s claims were struck out on that basis.   This case also reaffirms the view that conduct outside of employment can be taken into account when it comes to investigations into misconduct.  
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2355.html