A closely watched clash between a campaigning litigation group and a major political party will go to trial after the High Court refused to throw it out. On 19 June 2026, in Good Law Project Ltd v Reform UK Party Ltd [2026] EWHC 1458 (KB), the King's Bench Division dismissed Reform UK's attempt to have the Good Law Project's data-protection claim struck out or summarily dismissed.
What the case was about
The Good Law Project (GLP) brought a claim seeking to enforce the data-protection rights of a group of individuals (the "Relevant Individuals") against Reform UK. At its heart, the claim concerns data subject access requests (DSARs): GLP alleges that Reform UK failed to comply with them — by missing the time limit for responding and by giving inadequate responses — and that the Relevant Individuals suffered non-material damage as a result.
Reform UK did not, at this stage, fight the merits. Instead it applied to strike out the claim or for reverse summary judgment, arguing that the claim was an abuse of process and vexatious, that GLP lacked standing to litigate other people's data rights, and that GLP's pre-action conduct was procedurally deficient.
What the court decided
The court refused Reform UK's application in full. None of the grounds was made out. In summary:
- It is not an abuse of process, and not vexatious. The essence of the claim is to enforce the data rights of the Relevant Individuals; if those rights were breached and they suffered damage, they are entitled to seek relief.
- GLP's standing is a question for trial, not for summary disposal. Whether GLP can properly represent the Relevant Individuals is a triable issue rather than something to be decided on a strike-out application.
- The claim has a real prospect of success. It raises triable issues of fact — including whether Reform UK actually complied with the DSARs — and is arguable, which is enough to survive.
- The procedural criticisms GLP faced (around the pre-action protocol and its letter before action) did not justify strike-out or reverse summary judgment.
The practical result: the claim proceeds to a trial.
Why it matters
It is important to be precise about what this decision is — and is not:
- It is a green light to trial, not a win on the merits. The court decided only that the claim is arguable and should be heard, not that Reform UK breached anyone's data rights. Both sides' substantive cases remain to be tested.
- The standing question is the one to watch. Whether a campaigning organisation can litigate to enforce the data rights of a defined group of individuals is a live and consequential issue, now expressly reserved for trial. The answer will interest anyone following representative and group data-protection litigation.
- DSAR compliance is back in the spotlight. The case is a reminder that the duties to respond to data subject access requests in time and substance are enforceable — and that failures can lead to litigation, not just regulatory complaints.
For now, the headline is simple: the Good Law Project's claim against Reform UK survives, and the real arguments are still to come.
Research the data-protection and strike-out authorities on Search the Law:
Crown copyright material reproduced by permission of The National Archives. The contents of the judgment can be used under the Open Justice – Licence. The case law available through this platform only partially represents the activities of the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom. This article is commentary for general information only, is not legal advice, and should be checked against the judgment itself, available in full on The National Archives.