Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  162 / 192 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 162 / 192 Next Page
Page Background

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).


Readers may refer to the Guidance on the Proper Handling of Data Correction Request

by Data Users


issued by the Commissioner for practical guidance in complying with the

requirements under the Ordinance.



Guidance on the Proper Handling of Data Correction Request by Data Users

, available on the Website: