162 / 192
to her former employer claiming she was not a party to the four Small Claims Tribunal
cases listed in her credit check report, which she also claimed was inaccurate.
According to the report, the appellant was the plaintiff of two cases and the defendant
of the other two cases. The Commissioner made enquiries with the Small Claims Tribunal
and was able to verify that the appellant was indeed the plaintiffs in two actions by
verifying the HKID number of the plaintiffs supplied by the Small Claims Tribunal. However,
the identity of the defendants in the other two cases could not be identified because in
one case, the Tribunal did not possess the HKID number or contact number of the
defendant; while in the other case, the action number was incomplete. The AAB
confirmed the Commissioner’s finding that the data in the report sought to be corrected
as regards these two cases was an expression of opinion, and the subsequent action
taken by the employer in adding to the report a written note next to the relevant data
to the effect that she disputed the same satisfied the requirements under section 25(2).
11.42
Readers may refer to the Guidance on the Proper Handling of Data Correction Request
by Data Users
4
issued by the Commissioner for practical guidance in complying with the
requirements under the Ordinance.
4
See
Guidance on the Proper Handling of Data Correction Request by Data Users
, available on the Website:
https://www.pcpd.org.hk//english/resources_centre/publications/files/dcr_e.pdf