header-logo header-logo

25 October 2018
Issue: 7814 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Data leak wake-up call

Supermarket vicariously liable for employee breach

Supermarket giant WM Morrison has lost its appeal against a ruling that it is liable for an intentional data breach by an employee, in the first class action data breach case.

In 2014, the supermarket’s disgruntled internal auditor, Andrew Skelton, posted bank account details, salary information, national insurance numbers, addresses and phone numbers of 100,000 employees to data sharing websites. Skelton was sentenced to eight years in prison and Morrison was held vicariously liable for his actions.

Ruling in WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various claimants [2018] EWCA Civ 2339, the Court of Appeal unanimously held the supermarket giant liable to the 5,518 claimants who sought compensation. Morrisons has been refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Nick McAleenan, partner at JMW Solicitors, who represented the claimants, said: ‘They were obliged to hand over sensitive personal information and had every right to expect it to remain confidential, but a copy was made and it was uploaded to the internet and they were put at risk of fraud, identity theft and a host of other problems. ‘Unsurprisingly, this caused a huge amount of worry, stress and inconvenience. The judgment is a wake-up call for business.’

Nicola Cain, partner at RPC, said: ‘The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Morrisons case is a stark warning to all businesses that they can end up facing huge data breach compensation claims despite doing nothing wrong at all.

‘The High Court specifically made the point that Morrisons met its legal obligations to protect its employees’ personal data. It was as much a victim in this case as those who had their data breached.’

Issue: 7814 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll