Factual and Procedural Background
This case concerns an assessment of damages for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, breach of contract, and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA"). The claimant and defendant are both celebrities who were formerly in a relationship and married in 2010, divorcing in 2012. During their relationship, the defendant obtained video recordings and photographs of the claimant engaged in sexual activity ("the Private Information"). The defendant gave undertakings in 2011 not to disclose this Private Information except in limited circumstances.
In 2017, the claimant sued the defendant alleging multiple disclosures of the Private Information to numerous third parties between 2012 and 2018, breaches of the undertakings, and harassment. The claimant sought an injunction, damages, and other relief, initially limiting damages to £25,000 for issue fee purposes.
Interim injunction applications were made and adjourned in 2017 and 2018, with an interim injunction granted in May 2018. The defendant served a Defence admitting obtaining the Private Information but denying liability, asserting consent, and denying disclosures or retention after January 2014. The defendant later ceased to be represented and acted in person.
In April 2019, directions were given for trial with a warning of potential striking out for non-compliance. On 27 November 2019, the defendant's Defence was struck out for failure to comply with directions, and judgment was entered for the claimant on liability, with an injunction and orders for delivery up and damages to be assessed at this hearing.
The defendant did not attend or participate in the damages hearing. The defendant was made bankrupt in November 2019, engaging provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court proceeded with the hearing on condition that enforcement of judgment is stayed except by proof in bankruptcy.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should proceed with the damages hearing in the absence of the defendant, who is unrepresented and bankrupt.
- The appropriate assessment of damages for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, breach of contract, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
- The extent to which the defendant's bankruptcy affects enforcement of any judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 (QB) |
Proceeding in absence of a party; proper notice and caution in trials. |
Guided the court's decision to proceed in absence of the defendant, considering notice and defendant's conduct. |
| Brett Wilson LLP v Person(s) Unknown [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB) |
Proper notice and Human Rights Act s 12(2) requirements for relief affecting freedom of expression. |
Supported the court's assessment that all practicable steps to notify the defendant had been taken. |
| Heating Electrical Lighting and Piping Limited (in Liquidation) v Ross [2012] EWHC 3764 (Ch) |
Effect of Insolvency Act s 285(3)(a) on enforcement against bankrupt's estate. |
Informed the court's decision to stay enforcement of judgment except by proof in bankruptcy. |
| Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) |
Principles for damages in misuse of private information: compensation for distress, aggravation, proportionality. |
Provided guiding principles for assessing damages for wrongful disclosure and distress. |
| Cooper v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) |
Subsequent case on damages for misuse of private information. |
Referenced as part of the body of authorities informing damages assessment. |
| Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355 (QB) |
Subsequent case on misuse of private information damages. |
Referenced in damages context. |
| Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1163 (QB) |
Damages for misuse of private information. |
Referenced for principles on damages. |
| Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch) and [2017] QB 149 |
Damages for misuse of private information and phone-hacking cases. |
Used for comparison of awards and principles regarding privacy breaches. |
| TLT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB) |
Damages principles for misuse of private information. |
Referenced in damages assessment. |
| Richard v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) [2019] Ch 169 |
Damages for misuse of private information. |
Referenced in damages context. |
| Burrell v Clifford [2016] EWHC 294 (Ch) |
Damages for misuse of private information. |
Referenced in damages assessment. |
| Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 [2020] EMLR 2 |
Damages for loss of autonomy and control in misuse of private information claims. |
Supported principles on damages relating to intimacy and extent of disclosure. |
| Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB) |
Evidence and attribution of harm in damages claims. |
Used to assess causation and attribution of certain taunts and psychological harm. |
| Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC (QB) [2017] 1 WLR 68 |
Damages for defamation and public allegations. |
Used for comparison of damages awards. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded with the damages hearing in the defendant's absence, applying CPR r 39.3 regarding failure to attend trial and considering the defendant's bankruptcy under the Insolvency Act 1986 s 285. The court found that all practicable steps to notify the defendant had been taken, and the defendant had not engaged or sought adjournment. The court imposed a stay on enforcement of judgment except by proof in bankruptcy to protect the defendant and creditors.
The court accepted the claimant's pleaded case as true given the striking out of the Defence and lack of challenge. The claimant's evidence was uncontradicted and detailed numerous disclosures of the Private Information to known and unknown third parties over several years, including public disclosures and breaches of undertakings.
The court identified the wrongful acts as breach of contract, breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of statutory duty under the DPA. It found the defendant's conduct aggravated damages due to persistence, false denials, and hostile responses.
In assessing damages, the court applied established legal principles from leading cases, emphasizing compensation for distress, hurt feelings, loss of dignity, and aggravation. The court rejected exaggerated claims of destroyed life and psychiatric harm absent expert evidence, but accepted substantial distress and loss of dignity caused by the disclosures and conduct.
The court noted the claimant's acceptance of a damages limit of £25,000 imposed by the claim form and awarded that sum accordingly, finding it justified and proportionate to the wrongs and harm suffered.
Holding and Implications
The court AWARDED DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF £25,000 to the claimant for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, breach of contract, and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
The court proceeded with the hearing despite the defendant's absence and bankruptcy, imposing a stay on enforcement of the judgment except by proof in bankruptcy to protect the defendant and creditors. No new precedent was set. The decision concludes the damages aspect of the proceedings, vindicating the claimant's rights and providing compensation within the procedural and evidential constraints of the case.