Reid v Price

In assessing damages for misuse of private information, breach of confidence and data protection breaches, the court must award proportionate and non-arbitrary compensation that restores the claimant so far as possible. The award may reflect distress, hurt feelings, loss of dignity, loss of autonomy or control, and aggravating conduct. The intimacy of the information and the extent of disclosure are important factors. The court may use personal injury and defamation awards as broad comparators, but those analogies have limits. Psychiatric injury requires sufficiently detailed evidence and a sound basis for causation, ordinarily including expert evidence. A damages claim limited on the Claim Form cannot exceed that limit without amendment.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning intimate photographs and video recordings obtained during his relationship with the defendant. He alleged repeated disclosure and retention of the material in breach of confidence, misuse of private information, contract and the Data Protection Act 1998. The defendant’s Defence was struck out for failure to comply with case-management directions, and judgment on liability was entered. The hearing concerned assessment of damages and compensation. The defendant did not attend or participate, and was bankrupt. The central issues were whether the trial should proceed in her absence, how the bankruptcy affected enforcement, and the proper measure of compensation for the established wrongs.

1. Proceeding in the defendant’s absence. The court proceeded with the assessment under CPR r 39.3. The defendant had proper notice, had not sought an adjournment, had ceased engaging with the proceedings, and had failed to comply with earlier orders. The requirements of section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were also met because the claimant had taken all practicable steps to notify her.
2. Bankruptcy. The proceedings could continue under section 285 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court imposed a limited stay so that the judgment and costs orders were not enforceable otherwise than by proof in the bankruptcy, without determining the effect of sections 281(5) and 382.
3. Basis of assessment. Following the strike-out and consequential judgment, liability was assessed on the basis that the pleaded facts were true. The contract claim added nothing material to the claims in confidence, privacy and data protection. The principal wrong was wrongful disclosure, with wrongful retention being secondary.
4. Damages principles. Compensation was to restore the claimant to the position he would have occupied absent the tort. It could include distress, hurt feelings, loss of dignity, loss of autonomy or control, and aggravating conduct. The nature and intimacy of the information, the extent of dissemination, and the defendant’s persistence and hostility were relevant. The award had to be proportionate, non-arbitrary, adequate and effective.
5. The evidence established repeated disclosure of intimate sexual material to known individuals and strangers, together with publication of a graphic description. The defendant’s conduct substantially aggravated the harm. However, the claimant did not prove that all alleged threats or insults resulted from the actionable disclosures, nor that his psychological difficulties were caused by them. Expert evidence and fuller medical detail would have been required for psychiatric harm.
6. The claim was limited to £25,000 for issue purposes. Without an amendment, the court could not award more. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant in the sum of £25,000, with enforcement stayed subject to proof in the bankruptcy.