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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll