![]() ![]() In the various prior proceedings between Mr Smith and the bank there had been only very limited disclosure by Lloyds. But Mr Smith believed that certain documentation held by Lloyds will prove his contentions. In at least two of the actions findings of fact had been made to the effect that no such oral agreement existed. Lloyds always denied the existence of any such oral agreement. One of the assertions Mr Smith made in these cases was that he and Lloyds had entered into an oral agreement to the effect that Lloyds would make available to DEL long term finance in a substantial amount. A number of litigation cases ensued between Mr Smith and Lloyds. The bank also lodged a bankruptcy petition with respect to Mr Smith personally. As a result, DEL went into liquidation, and Mr Smith lost his home. DEL did not prosper, and eventually Lloyds called in its loans. An agreement was entered into between Mr Smith, DEL and Lloyds under which Lloyds would take over the funding of the development, but one of the terms of this agreement was that both Mr Smith's personal borrowings (which at that time were very small) and DEL's borrowings would be subject to a security interest over the development in favour of the bank, and also by a mortgage on Mr Smith's home. At that time DEL owed Barclays over £250,000. At some time in 1988, Mr Smith decided to transfer the banking for DEL from Barclays Bank Plc to Lloyds Bank. The claimant, Mr Smith, was the former managing director and controlling shareholder of a company called Display Electronics Ltd (referred to in the judgment as "DEL"). The second was that if data was held in a non-electronic form but could readily be turned into electronic form, then it constituted data for the purposes of the act. that even if the respondent no longer held the data in electronic form, if they once held it in electronic form they are obligated to provide it. ![]() The first was referred to in the case as the "once processed always processed" argument, i.e. The claimant was seeking data from the bank, and he sought to advance two relatively novel lines of argument. Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc EWHC 246 was a judicial decision of the English High Court relating to the Data Protection Act 1998. Terence William Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc Not to be confused with Smith v Lloyds TSB Group plc in 2000. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |