Legal action against Reform UK ‘politically motivated’, court hears

Legal action against Reform UK over the party’s collection and use of people’s data is “politically motivated”, the High Court has been told.

The Good Law Project is suing Reform on behalf of 51 people who claim that the party failed to reply to their data subject access requests within the legal time frame.

Reform opposes the claim and, at a hearing on Wednesday, its lawyers described it as “a means to an end” and asked the court to throw it out.

Andrew Sharland KC, for the Good Law Project, said in written submissions that it had developed a tool before the general election in July 2024, where people could email the major political parties asking them to stop processing their data.

Along with Reform, people could contact the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party.

Mr Sharland said that more than 11,600 people used the Good Law Project tool, of whom 1,746 contacted Reform.

He said: “Parties other than Reform responded to the request messages in a timely manner, and the Labour Party engaged co-operatively when the Good Law Project raised concerns about the adequacy of its responses.

“By contrast, Reform failed to respond to the request messages within one month of receipt.”

He also said the party sent out a general email in October 2024 after a letter about legal action, but that it “failed to confirm or deny whether Reform was processing the relevant individual’s personal data at the time of the request”.

Philip Coppel KC, for Reform, asked the court to throw out the claim, calling it “thoroughly unmeritorious” and “conducted for improper purposes”.

In written submissions, he said the claim is “politically motivated” and “speculative”, while being an “abuse of process”.

Responding to a description of the case by the Good Law Project on its website, which said the claim is about “far deeper issues than data rights and wrongs”, Mr Coppel told the court: “This is not about data protection.

“The claimant is using, in its own words, data protection as a means to an end.”

He also said that none of the people contacting the party gave any identification.

The barrister added: “The data subject access requests did not suggest that any non-compliance or delay in compliance by Reform would result in, or would be likely to result in, or would even possibly result in, loss, damage or distress of any kind being suffered by the data subject.

“The volume and timing of the data subject access requests did not permit Reform to research and answer them within a month.”

The hearing, before Mr Justice Murray, will conclude on Wednesday, with a judgment expected at a later date.