On 15 December 2023, the High Court handed down judgment in the trial of four test claims against MGN Limited. In summary, the claimants alleged that they were the victims of unlawful information gathering carried out by MGN. This included voicemails intercepted both by MGN and through private investigators they had instructed and took place during the 1990s through to 2011. The claimants claimed damages for losses caused by the publication of their private information.
This was the fourth wave in the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation and tested a number of areas that would be relevant for other claimants. Two of the claimants, including the Duke of Sussex, were awarded damages for misuse of their private information. The other two claims were found to be time barred.
Decision
The court considered 33 articles (agreed between the Duke and MGN) of the 148 published about the Duke that he had complained about. Of those 33, 15 were found to be the product of unlawful information gathering. In reaching his decision, the judge applied the two stage test set down in Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 as to whether there had been a misuse of private information:
- Did the Claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information; and
- Is the expectation outweighed by the publishers' right to freedom of expression.
When deciding that 18 of the articles did not meet the above test, the judge also considered the following factors: whether the articles were published prior to the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force; whether the event described took place at a public venue such as to limit the expectation of privacy and whether the information was already publicly available and/or came from a credible source.
Whilst MGN argued that it was in the public interest to publish the content, but only succeeded to a limited degree and did not extend to the unlawful information gathering about the Duke's personal feelings about being unable to continue to serve. The Duke was awarded £140,600 in damages and Michael Turner, a Coronation Street actor, was awarded £31,650.
In relation to limitation, MGN was successful in arguing that the other two claimants were time barred from bringing their claims. The claimants relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the time for bringing a claim (an action for breach of privacy must be brought within six years of when the cause of action accrued under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980), but this was rejected by the judge on the basis that the claimants should have been put on notice that phone hacking was taking place, particularly in light of the widespread media attention on the Leveson Inquiry and Report (published in 2012 which found phone hacking practices were widespread).
President Donald J Trump -v- Orbis Business Intelligence Limited [2024] EWHC 173 (KB)
On 1 February 2024, the High Court dismissed the former president's claim for alleged breaches of the UK GDPR against a British private investigation firm in relation to the "Steele Dossier" which alleged ties between Mr Trump's election campaign and Russia and that Mr Trump engaged in behaviour that gave Russian authorities material with which to blackmail him. Mr Trump denied these allegations and stated that he had brought the claim against Orbis to "prove, by evidence at trial, that the data are false".
The former president alleged that Orbis had breached Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR arising from the processing of inaccurate personal data of which he was the subject. Mr Trump sought compensation pursuant to Article 82 of the UK GDPR and an order that the defendant rectify the inaccurate personal data and/or that the personal data be erased pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of the UK GDPR respectively.
The defendant applied for summary judgment and/or that the claim be struck out on the basis that the claimant had no reasonable grounds for claiming, or a real prospect of obtaining either of the remedies sought. Steyn J agreed.
There was no pleaded processing other than retention and storage in respect of the period from 25 May 2018. Although the Particulars of Claim purported to give particulars in support of the claim for distress under the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018, there was no particularisation that bore any relation to the claim in respect of mere holding of the data. It could not sensibly be claimed – and the claimant did not seek to assert – that the mere fact that the defendant held copies of the data caused him distress.
The judge also gave short shrift to the order for compliance, " An order requiring the erasure of copies of the Memoranda held by the Defendant, in circumstances in which the whole Dossier remains freely available on the internet for anybody to access, view, download and disseminate, would achieve nothing. There would be no real prospect of the court making such a pointless order. In addition, it is unnecessary to pursue these proceedings to secure erasure given the undertaking offered by the Defendant on ascertaining that it still held any copies. "
The Courts have shown that even high profile claims must address the key issues of limitation, causation and loss.
