The claimants complained that the appellant newspaper had hacked into their mobile telephones over a period of time. The newspaper now appealed against the level of damages awarded (between andpound;72k and andpound;260k).
Held: The appeals were dismissed.
Arden LJ said: ‘Damages in consequence of a breach of a person’s private rights are not the same as vindicatory damages to vindicate some constitutional right. In the present context, the damages are an award to compensate for the loss or diminution of a right to control formerly private information and for the distress that the [claimants] could justifiably have felt because their private information had been exploited, and are assessed by reference to that loss.’
Arden, Rafferty, Kitchin LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1291, [2015] WLR(D) 535, [2016] 3 All ER 799, [2016] EMLR 9, [2016] FSR 13, [2016] 2 WLR 1217
Bailii, WLRD, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Gulati and Others v MGN Limited ChD 21-May-2015
The claimants each claimed that their mobile phones had been hacked by or on behalf of the defendant newspaper group. The claims had now in substance been admitted, and the court set out to assess the damages (and aggravated damages) to be paid.
Media, Damages, Information
Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557088