JOSEPH CLEARY v MARSTON (HOLDINGS) LTD

Low-value, straightforward data-breach claims should ordinarily be commenced in the County Court and allocated to the small claims track where factual disputes are limited, the legal issues are uncomplicated and specialist judicial expertise is unnecessary. The existence of overlapping claims for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and data protection does not itself justify High Court proceedings. Claimants and advisers should consider whether additional causes of action add genuine value or merely increase complexity and cost. A declaration is unusual in this type of claim and should not be sought without an exceptional justification, because the judgment and order ordinarily vindicate any legal right established.

This was a case management conference in a claim arising from the accidental email disclosure of a letter containing the claimant’s personal information to a colleague. The claim pleaded breach of data protection legislation, misuse of private information and breach of confidence, seeking damages and a declaration. The pleaded value was limited to £3,000, while estimated costs to trial approached £47,000.

The claimant’s solicitors relied on the specialist Media and Communications List, the equitable breach of confidence claim and the developing nature of the law. The claimant did not oppose transfer if ordered. The central issues were whether the claim should remain in the High Court, whether it should be transferred to the County Court, and whether it should be allocated to the small claims track.

1. Forum. On a proper reading of CPR 53.1, non-defamation media and communications claims may be brought and fairly tried in the County Court where they are low-value and lack particular complexity. Inclusion of misuse of private information or data-protection causes of action does not automatically make a claim a High Court claim.
2. Breach of confidence. The County Court lacks original jurisdiction to hear a breach of confidence claim under ss.23–24 of the County Courts Act 1984. Nevertheless, a breach of confidence claim started in the High Court may be transferred to the County Court.
3. Overlapping causes of action. In a straightforward data-breach case, breach of data protection may provide a sufficient remedy. Claimants and advisers should consider whether adding misuse of private information and breach of confidence contributes anything of real value. Additional claims may complicate proceedings and increase costs without advancing the resolution of the complaint.
4. Declaration. A declaration is an unusual remedy in a claim of this kind. It should not ordinarily be sought unless there is an exceptional justification. The court’s judgment and order normally provide sufficient vindication of any right established, and a formal declaration would add no value here.
5. Allocation. The claim was factually straightforward, involved limited factual dispute, raised no apparently complex legal issue and did not require a specialist judge. Its value would ordinarily lead to allocation to the small claims track, and no justification for a different track had been advanced. Wider access-to-justice and funding concerns could not determine the proper allocation. The proceedings were transferred to the claimant’s home County Court and allocated to the small claims track.