0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Robertson v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, Queen's Bench Division, 16 November 2001

3 December 2001
The issues

Sale of electoral register by local authority – authority refusing to remove voters name – whether breach of Human Rights.

The facts

The local authority had sold the information contained on the electoral register to a commercial organisation. They refused to remove the Claimant’s name from the register as supplied to the commercial organisation. He alleged that the refusal were in breach of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 3 of the First Protocol.

The decision

The local authority had the duty of preparing and publishing a register of parliamentary and local government electors annually. They were required to supply a copy to any person on payment of a fee. There was no provision in the Representation of the People Regulations 2001 for registers to be edited. Domestic law therefore failed to comply with Article 14 (the right to object) of Directive 95/46/EC on data protection.

It was foreseeable that the sale of the Register would effect electors in that they would become marketing targets. The practise of selling the register to commercial concerns without forwarding individual electors the right of objection was a disproportionate way of giving effects to the legitimate objective of retaining a commercially available register. The Claimant’s Article 8 rights were therefore breached. Moreover if the regulations made the right to vote conditional upon the name appearing on the register with no individual right of objection they would contravene Article 3 of the first protocol.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up