header-logo header-logo

01 July 2021
Issue: 7939 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Data protection adequacy rating welcomed

Lawyers have welcomed the European Commission’s decision that UK data protection standards are ‘adequate’―however, weakening standards could lead to immediate revocation
The decision means digital information can continue to flow between the UK and European Economic Area (EEA) without additional safeguards being introduced.

Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the European Commission determines whether third countries provide adequate protection for personal data. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement provided a bridging mechanism, which was due to end on 30 June 2021.

Kate Brimsted, partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, said: ‘This formal recognition of the adequacy of the UK’s data protection laws is a highly significant step. 

‘It will save EU businesses with UK-bound data flows―as well as their UK business partners―a considerable amount of red tape. The decision was not a forgone conclusion and objections and concerns were raised by the European Parliament during the process.’

However, she highlighted the fact the decision came with a built-in expiry date of four years.

‘As well as this, if the UK’s data policy innovations go too far for the European Commission’s liking, there is the ability to revoke the decision immediately,’ she said.

‘While this comes as a relief (if not a surprise), the UK will have to box clever when it comes to its post-Brexit liberalisation of laws, and its digital strategy-setting. The UK government’s TIGRR [Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform] report last month proposed replacing the GDPR with a “more proportionate framework”, something which sounds exactly the kind of move likely to endanger the UK’s adequacy decision, if taken up.’

Had the European Commission decision gone the other way, all those processing personal data would have been required to put in place appropriate safeguards or rely on exemptions in data protection law.

The Law Society, which has been urging members to hope for the best but prepare for the worst, welcomed the news but recommended members regularly review their contingency planning.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘Though adopted, adequacy decisions are time-limited, subject to review and may even be challenged in the future especially if the UK diverges from EU regulation.’

Issue: 7939 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll