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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll