Example Legal Letter 3
To: journalist@emailaccount.co.uk
From: CaliburnandFinch@lawfirm.co.uk
Subject: PUBLICATION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BREACHING DATA PROTECTION
6 October 2025. 21:30.Emails can be sent late in an evening when communication is difficult.
I am writing to you concerning an article that was published about our client, Mrs Jones, that contains personal information including details of court proceedings and her full name.
The Claimant seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, together with damages, arising from the Defendants’ ongoing and unlawful publication of personal data in beach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018, and/or by way of misuse of private information under common law.These are both complex areas of law where legal advice would be best sought. There is some introductory text to both misuse of private information and data protection on the website.
The publication, which names the Claimant in the context of criminal proceedings, remains accessible despite a formal erasure request and causes continuing harm to the Claimant’s emotional well-being, private life, and reputation.
The Claimant does not seek monetary compensation as the primary remedy.The purpose of a SLAPP is often to stop an article from being published. Financial threats are often used to achieve this. However, it is estimated that damages for distress, reputational harm, and loss of opportunity may exceed £5,000, subject to assessment by the Court. The principal remedies sought are injunctive and declaratory.
1. The Claimant is Mrs. Jones. The First Defendant is an online news publisher operating via the website InvestigativeJournalism.co.uk. The Second Defendant is the editor of the said publication and is jointly responsible for the editorial and data proceesing decisions of the First Defendant.
2. On InvestigativeJournalism.co.uk, the Defendants published and continue to publish the article in question. The article refers to the Claimant by full name, discloses details of court proceedings, and remains publicly accessible at the data of the issuance of this claim.
3. On 4 September 2025, the Claimant submitted a formal request to the Defendants seeking removal or redaction of the article pursuant to their rights under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR”), as incorporated into UK domestic law via the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”). The request invoked the Claimant’s right to erasure (Article 17 UK GDPR), and further contended that the continued processing of the Claimant’s personal data was unlawful and disproportionate.
4. The Defendants refused to take action on the request.There are journalistic exemptions in both the UK GDPR and DPA 2018. The Information Commissioner's Office has provided guidance on this exemption,
5. The continued processing and publication of the Claimant’s personal data is not necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, is causing ongoing and disproportionate harm, and fails to satisfy the “legitimate interest” test under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR. The Defendants failed to carry out any form of Legitimate Interest Assessment (LIA) as required.The Information Commissioner's Office says that: 'There is no specific requirement i the UK GDPR for you to do this. However, in practice you are likely to need an audit trail of your decisions and justification for processing on the basis of legitimate interest.
6. The Claimant further says that the publication and continued availability of the article constitutes a misuse of private information, in breach of the Claimant’s reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly given the lack of public interest in the matter.When it comes to misuse of private information, it is a two stage test focusing on firstly, if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, was the information in the public interest. Whenever conducting a story, think about the public interest at each stage.
7. The Claimant’s rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.Article 8 needs to be balanced with Article 10 and the two stage test.(right to respect for private and family life) have been interfered with in a manner that is neither justified nor proportionate.
8. As a result of the Defendant’s actions, the Claimant has suffered significant distress, reputational damage, emotional harm, and loss of employment opportunities. The Claimant reserves the right to adduce further evidence in support of financial and non-financial losses.
If we receive confirmation within 24 hours that you will remove the article then no further action will be taken.SLAPP letters will usually have a short timeframe to increase pressure.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Caliburn & Finch Solicitors