Mike Ashley, a prominent figure in retail, engages in a legal battle with HMRC over data disclosures.
- Ashley is contesting a £13.6 million tax demand from HMRC, claiming incomplete data disclosure.
- His data access requests were reportedly ignored, leading Ashley to seek legal action for data breaches.
- HMRC acknowledges limited breaches but asserts efforts to rectify the situation have been made.
- The case’s conclusion is awaited, with potential implications for data privacy practices within government entities.
Mike Ashley, renowned in the retail industry, has initiated legal proceedings against HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) due to an alleged lack of response to his data requests. Ashley’s request for personal data followed a significant tax demand of £13.6 million, linked to properties he sold to entities owned by Sports Direct International in 2012. With this legal challenge, Ashley aims to highlight purported extensive breaches in data protection obligations by HMRC.
Despite HMRC’s defence, acknowledging only minor breaches, the central issue remains pending. Ashley’s legal team has portrayed the tax authority’s actions as obstructive, with his barrister Anya Proops KC stating in court that HMRC met the subject access request with “a complete stone wall.” The delay in providing the requested data—17 months after the initial request and just a month after the legal suit commenced—forms a critical part of Ashley’s allegations.
HMRC, represented by James Cornwell, concedes to previous lapses but emphasises their ongoing efforts to address these issues. Cornwell argues that Ashley’s interpretation of his data rights has been overly broad from the outset. He further stressed the extensive time and effort HMRC allocated to rectify the acknowledged failures, suggesting a commitment to compliance despite initial shortcomings.
The legal proceedings are continuing, with the court’s decision anticipated after the hearings conclude. The intricacies of this case may set significant precedents concerning data privacy obligations and enforcement within public bodies, particularly highlighting the balance between legal authorities’ data handling and individual privacy rights.
The outcome of this legal case could influence future handling of data protection disputes in public sector entities.
