FGX v Stuart Gaunt

Damages for image-based abuse involving covert recording and publication of intimate images should reflect both the psychiatric injury and the misuse of private information. The court must avoid double recovery where overlapping causes of action arise from the same conduct.

Quantum depends on the significance and extent of publication, the claimant-specific impact, the duration and severity of the psychiatric injury, and aggravating features such as publication of an identifying photograph, financial benefit and failure to participate in the proceedings. A chronic psychiatric condition involving enduring personality change may justify an award towards the upper end of the applicable guideline range.

The claimant obtained judgment in default on liability after the defendant covertly recorded her naked and partially naked, uploaded the images to a pornographic website with a photograph identifying her, and failed to defend the civil claim. The claim included intentional infliction of injury and misuse of private information.

The defendant did not attend the assessment hearing. The court determined general damages, consequential financial losses, future treatment costs and the estimated cost of removing the images from the internet.

1. Assessment and causes of action. The court assessed damages for intentional infliction of injury and misuse of private information. Although the causes of action overlapped substantially, the factors relevant to each were materially different. The award nevertheless had to maintain a reasonable relationship between them and avoid double counting, applying the approach in Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC and MGN Limited v Representative Claimants [2015] EWCA Civ 1291.
2. General damages. The images were significant private information. Their continuing availability online, and the high likelihood of replication, materially increased the seriousness of the intrusion. The claimant suffered chronic PTSD with an enduring personality change, became reclusive, changed to home working and avoided personal relationships. Her psychiatric injury was treated as the primary injury.
3. The psychiatric injury fell within the moderately severe PTSD category in the Judicial College Guidelines. The award was placed towards the top of that range because of the enduring personality change, while recognising that the claimant remained able to work and had shown some improvement. No separate award was made for the related anxiety and depressive disorder because that would risk double counting.
4. The publication of the claimant’s face, evidence that the defendant obtained payment, and his failure to participate were aggravating features. They justified an uplift within the general damages assessment, but not a separate award for aggravated damages.
5. Special damages. The court awarded reasonable hotel costs, the evidenced value of furniture left behind, the defendant’s flight costs for an aborted holiday, treatment costs, the estimated cost of online content removal, and limited future treatment and prescription costs. The online removal award was allowed because the defendant’s non-participation prevented a more reliable estimate. Lifetime medication costs were restricted to two years to reduce the risk of double recovery.
6. The total award was £60,000 general damages and £37,041.61 special damages, making £97,041.61.

First-instance assessment of damages following judgment in default on liability. No appellate decision is stated in the judgment.