Data Protection and GDPR
In today’s digital age, personal data is more valuable and vulnerable than ever. Whether you’re an individual whose sensitive information has been misused, or a business facing regulatory scrutiny, robust legal support is essential. At Taylor Hampton, our data protection solicitors specialise in bringing claims under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act (“DPA”) 2018. We can help safeguard your personal data rights, mitigate risk for Data Controllers, and pursue redress through the courts and/or the ICO
As an organisation, you must ensure you comply with the UK GDPR and DPA 2018. This legislation regulates how Data Controllers and Processors collect, use, store, and share personal information.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) oversees regulatory enforcement, has powers to audit, issue fines, and demands corrective action. Non-compliance can lead to serious reputational, operational, and financial consequences.
If you process personal data, you have legal obligations. Under the UK GDPR and DPA 2018, data must be:
Failing to adhere to these obligations can lead to regulatory action or civil claims.
If your data is being processed, you have rights under the law. These include:
If any of these rights are breached, legal action may be possible.
You may need expert help in these scenarios:
We also act in circumstances where individuals assert claims for misuse of personal information, or wish to make deindexation requests to search engines in relation to information about them made available online.
Under a Misuse of Private Information claim, a Claimant will need to satisfy the following:
Under a UK GDPR claim, a Claimant will need to satisfy the following:
These cases are legally complex and fact-sensitive. Early legal advice is critical.
If your claim succeeds, potential remedies include:
If your personal data has been misused or you suspect non-compliance, don’t wait. Contact Taylor Hampton’s data protection solicitors for expert advice and swift action.
Often yes — especially if it led to harm, distress, or misuse beyond what was permitted.
Under GDPR, statutory timeframes and limitation periods apply (often six years for contract / tort claims).
Yes — via erasure requests, regulatory enforcement, or court orders in certain circumstances.
Privacy / misuse of private information deals with wrongful exposure and/or intrusion of private data, whereas GDPR claims focus on unlawful processing of personal data under statutory rules.
Yes. Regulatory penalties do not prevent individual civil claims.
Taylor Hampton is London’s leading Award Winning Privacy, Defamation and Phone Hacking Solicitors.
Taylor Hampton have successfully acted in the following cases:
Sylvia Henry, the Baby P Social Worker, in her successful action against the Sun in relation to 80 highly defamatory articles. The Sun was forced to apologise to Ms Henry, both in Court and in print, and to pay her substantial damages and her costs.
Antonio Serrano, a GP, in his claim for defamation against the Daily Mail after the paper falsely ran a story condemning his treatment of a patient. The paper ran a story under the headline, “A whole year of hell, thanks to a foreign doctor”. Dr Serrano was fully vindicated by the Court and was awarded substantial damages and his costs.
Dr Sarah Thornton, an author and academic, who was libelled by the Daily Telegraph. This was a landmark case which changed the law. It led to the important test of “substantial damage to reputation” being required in order to found a libel action. This subsequently contributed to the enactment of the “serious harm” test in the Defamation Act 2013. It was also notable because general damages were awarded for malicious falsehood for the first time in many years.
Bruno Lachaux, a French aerospace engineer residing in the UAE, in his claims for defamation against the Independent Print Limited, the “i” Newspaper, the Evening Standard and AOL (UK) Ltd, otherwise known as the Huffington Post. This is another landmark case in the law of libel, having been one of the first to test the requirement for ‘serious harm’ under the Defamation Act 2013.