Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd v the Information Commissioner
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Mitchell |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKUT 132 (AAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Published date | 26 July 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Mitchell,E |
Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd v Information Commissioner
[2023] UKUT 132 (AAC)
1
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. UA-2021-000263-GIA
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
On appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
Between:
Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd
Appellant
- v –
The Information Commissioner
Respondent
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell
Hearing date: 13-14 July 2022 at Field House, Breams Buildings, Central
London.
Representation:
Appellant: Mr P Coppel KC, of counsel, instructed by Jung and Co. Solicitors.
Respondent: Mr P Lockley, of counsel, instructed by the Information
Commissioner’s Legal Services Directorate.
DECISION
The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to refuse this appeal. The decision of the
First-tier Tribunal, taken on 9 August 2021, under file reference EA/2020/0065/V, did
not involve an error on a point of law. Under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal dismisses this appeal.
Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd v Information Commissioner [2023] UKUT 132 (AAC)
Case no. UA-2021-000263-GIA
2
REASONS FOR DECISION
Meaning of terms used in these reasons
1. In these reasons:
- “Commissioner” means the Information Commissioner;
- “DPA 2018” means the Data Protection Act 2018 before it was amended on 31
December 2020 (the date on which the Act was amended to substitute
references to “GDPR” with “UK GDPR”). The relevant events in this case
occurred before that date;
- “MPN” means a penalty notice given under section 155(1) of the DPA 2018
requiring a person to pay a specified sum to the Commissioner;
- “Tribunal” means the First-tier Tribunal.
The main issue of wider interest: summary of conclusion
2. The main issue of potentially wider interest on this appeal concern the standard of
proof in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal on an appeal against a MPN. The
Upper Tribunal decides that, in such proceedings, disputed matters of fact are to be
resolved according to the civil standard of proof rather than the criminal standard.
Background
3. The Appellant company operated pharmacies and much of its business involved
supplying medicines to care homes. In July 2018, the Appellant held dispensing
contracts with 27 care homes.
4. The Appellant’s sole director and shareholder was Mr S Budhdeo. He was also the
sole director and shareholder of Joogee Pharma Ltd, a company engaged by the
Appellant to collect from care homes, and dispose of, unused medicines and
pharmaceutical records. According to Mr Budhdeo’s evidence before the Tribunal,
Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd v Information Commissioner [2023] UKUT 132 (AAC)
Case no. UA-2021-000263-GIA
3
Jogee Pharma had been providing services to the Appellant since March 2018, but
that arrangement was not, at July 2018, governed by any written contract.
5. On 24 July 2018, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
(MHRA) executed a search warrant at 75-79 Masons Avenue, Harrow (“the
Premises”). Joogee Pharma used the Premises in their business operations. The
Commissioner was not present at, nor did he have prior knowledge of, the search.
6. The Premises included an outside yard which, according to Mr Budhdeo’s
evidence before the Tribunal, could be accessed from the fire escapes of adjacent
residential flats. The MHRA reported seizing from the yard 47 unlocked crates, two
disposal bags and a cardboard box, which contained pharmaceutical and related
documents.
7. Following the MHRA’s search, they informed the Commissioner’s office of the
documents seized. The Commissioner’s staff relied on MHRA’s audit of the
documentation to determine its contents. The audit stated that some 500,000
documents, dated from December 2016 to June 2018, were seized at the Premises
comprised of the following:
- the majority of the documents were dispensing tokens (print outs of
electronic prescriptions), sent by care homes to the Appellant’s pharmacies;
- Medical administration records, on which care home staff had recorded
administration of medication to residents. Bottom copies of these records were
supposed to be returned to the Appellant on a monthly basis but, according to
the Appellant, care home staff routinely returned the top copy in error;
- copy prescriptions;
- prescription orders faxed by care homes;
- patient medication review documents and patient management records;
- care home resident lists and residents’ photographs;
- medication dispensing check lists;
- pharmacy delivery manifests and delivery driver records;
To continue reading
Request your trial