Reform UK fails to strike out data protection claim at London court, with judge ruling the case raises genuine issues for trial
Reform UK, the UK political party, has failed in a London court to have a data protection claim struck out at a preliminary hearing. The court ruled on Friday that the case raises issues that must proceed to trial and is not an abuse of process — rejecting Reform UK's argument that the claim was politically motivated. The claimant brought proceedings under data protection regulation — the applicable UK data protection framework — against the party. Reform UK sought to have the case dismissed summarily, arguing it was brought for improper political purposes rather than legitimate legal redress. The judge declined to accept that characterisation, finding instead that the claim raises substantive questions suitable for full trial. The ruling is notable for several reasons. It demonstrates courts' reluctance to strike out data protection claims at an early stage, even where defendants argue that the litigation is strategically motivated rather than substantively meritorious. Political parties hold significant quantities of personal data about members, donors, and supporters — making them natural targets for data protection claims — and this ruling signals that such defendants cannot easily exit proceedings on abuse-of-process grounds without a full evidential hearing.
Why this matters
The decision has practical implications for political organisations and, more broadly, any data controller seeking to resist data protection claims on the ground that litigation is being used as a tactical weapon. UK courts have consistently required defendants to clear a high bar to strike out proceedings as an abuse of process — the Reform UK ruling reinforces that position. For law firms, this creates advisory demand around UK data protection compliance and litigation strategy for organisations that hold politically or commercially sensitive personal data. The interaction between political speech, party data practices, and the UK data protection framework is a growing area of regulatory and contentious practice.
On the Ground
A trainee would prepare a chronology of the procedural steps to date and assist with skeleton argument research on abuse-of-process case law for the forthcoming trial. They would also help with disclosure review and categorisation of the party's data processing records.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Courts won't strike out data protection claims just because defendants label them politically motivated — substantive allegations go to trial.
Question you might get
“What are the key legal tests a defendant must satisfy to strike out a claim as an abuse of process under English civil procedure, and why might those tests be particularly difficult to meet in a data protection context?”
Full answer
A London court has refused to strike out a data protection claim against Reform UK, ruling the case raises genuine issues for trial and is not an abuse of process. The judgment matters because it confirms that defendants — including political organisations — face a high evidential threshold to exit data protection proceedings at a preliminary stage by arguing improper motive. The broader context is that UK data protection litigation is increasing as claimants and their litigation funders identify data controllers that hold large volumes of sensitive personal data. I think political parties, which hold particularly rich personal data on millions of people, will face a wave of similar claims over the coming years, creating a sustained pipeline of contentious data protection work.
Sources
My notes
saved