158 / 192
be such a person; and
(ii) that the requestor is such a person in relation to that individual.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to a data correction request where the requestor is the
same person as the requestor in respect of the data access request which gave rise to
the data correction request.
11.25
It can be seen that these circumstances are similar to those provided for in section
20(1)(a), in which a data user receiving a data access request is obliged to refuse to
comply with the request.
11.26
The circumstances in which a data user receiving a data correction request may refuse
to comply with the request are provided under section 24(3) as follows:
(3) A data user may refuse to comply with section 23(1) in relation to a data correction
request if –
(a) the request is not in writing in the Chinese or English language;
(b) the data user is not satisfied that the personal data to which the request relates is
inaccurate;
(c) the data user is not supplied with such information as the data user may
reasonably require to ascertain in what way the personal data to which the
request relates is inaccurate;
(d) the data user is not satisfied that the correction which is the subject of the request
is accurate; or
(e) subject to subsection (4), any other data user controls the processing of the
personal data to which the request relates in such a way as to prohibit the first-
mentioned data user from complying (whether in whole or in part) with that
section.
11.27
Again, most of the circumstances provided for in section 24(3) are largely similar to those
provided for in section 20(3), under which a data user may refuse to comply with a data
access request. In addition, it is grounds for refusal, under paragraph (b), when the data
user is not satisfied that the personal data to which the request relates is inaccurate. A
data user may be disinclined to correct personal data comprising an expression of
opinion. “Expression of opinion” is defined in section 25(3) to include “an assertion of fact
which (a) is unverifiable; or (b) in all the circumstances of the case, is not practicable to
verify”. Hence, the defined term extends to cover more than the ordinary meaning of
“opinion”.
11.28
What amounts to an “expression of opinion” hinges on the distinction between factual
and evaluative statements and is often difficult to judge. While it is easy to ascertain and
correct factual statements, for example, the name, age, address, or HKID number of the
data subject, the evaluative statements made by one person against the other, such as,
those made in an appraisal report or in a letter of termination of employment, are often
the subject of dispute by the dissatisfied data subjects. Other courses of action, like a
civil claim for defamation or the filing of an employee’s claim for unlawful dismissal seem
to be the more suitable channels for redress.