header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 February 2016 / Alex Cochrane , Patrick Wheeler
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Features , Profession , Damages
printer mail-detail

Tip of the iceberg

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll