header-logo header-logo

19 February 2016 / Alex Cochrane , Patrick Wheeler
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Features , Profession , Damages
printer mail-detail

Tip of the iceberg

The phone hacking trials have redefined privacy damages, note Patrick Wheeler & Alex Cochrane

On 17 December 2015, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in a group of cases known as Gulati & ors v MGN Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 1291, [2015] All ER (D) 193 (Dec). The claims alleged serious breaches of privacy arising from stories that were published based on information gleaned from unlawfully intercepted private phone messages. The court dismissed MGN’s appeal in full and upheld the judgment of Mr Justice Mann which had formulated a methodology for quantifying damages awards in privacy claims. This marks a significant departure from the previous received wisdom on the assessment of privacy damages.

Before Gulati

Pre-Gulati, it was widely understood by practitioners that the upper tariff for damages awards for privacy claims was set by the case of Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 322 (Jul). In 2008, Mr Mosley was awarded £60,000 damages in respect of a very serious

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll