Stuart Sutton & Ors v Currys Retail Group Limited

A stay of civil proceedings may be granted where a foreseeable event in related proceedings is likely to materially affect the issues, costs or prospects of settlement. The court must balance expeditious access to justice against the interests of justice, proportionality and the proper use of court resources. A stay is exceptional where it delays determination, but it may promote expeditious justice if it avoids unnecessary work and facilitates settlement. The stay should have a sufficiently ascertainable duration; an effectively indefinite stay is generally inappropriate.

711 claimants brought a mass claim for distress damages against Currys for alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 arising from a cyber-attack. Related regulatory proceedings had reached an appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning whether accessed credit-card data constituted personal data. Currys applied to stay the civil proceedings pending that appeal, or pending the conclusion of the regulatory proceedings more generally.

The court also considered costs of the stay application and an agreed application to substitute Currys Group Limited for Currys Retail Group Limited as defendant.

1. Stay. The application was granted until the outcome of the Upper Tribunal appeal. The relevant power under CPR 3.1(2)(f) had to be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1.
2. The question was whether a stay was required by the interests of justice in the particular circumstances. The pending appeal concerned a novel legal issue of fundamental relevance to quantum. Its outcome was likely to affect the parties’ approach, the scope for early settlement and the issues requiring determination.
3. The court balanced the claimants’ interest in expeditious justice against the substantial costs and court resources likely to be incurred if a complex, relatively low-value mass claim proceeded in parallel. Expeditious justice could be served by pausing proceedings where that created a realistic prospect of saving time and expense.
4. The stay was limited to the Upper Tribunal appeal because its hearing date provided a timescale that could be estimated as likely to fall within the year. A stay extending through any further appeals would have an effectively indeterminate duration and was not justified.
5. Costs of the stay application. The claimants were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs. The defendant had offered the shorter stay that the court granted, and CPR 44.2(2)(a) supported the general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs. Costs were summarily assessed at £35,724.94 in accordance with CPR PD44 §9.2(b).
6. Substitution. The agreed substitution of Currys Group Limited for Currys Retail Group Limited was granted. The claimants were ordered to bear the costs because the application resulted from their naming the wrong party and their failure to take practical procedural steps to avoid the additional costs.