The claimants alleged misuse of their private information in collecting information about their internet useage when using Google products. Google now applied for an order setting aside consent for service out of the jurisdiction.
Held: The judge dismissed the applications to set aside permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction in respect of the claims for misuse of private information and under the DPA and granted declarations that the court had jurisdiction to try both claims. He concluded that the claimants had clearly established that this jurisdiction was the appropriate one in which to try both claims. He declared the court had no jurisdiction to try the claims for an injunction or the claims for breach of confidence, and the claim form and Particulars of Claim, in respect of those claims, were set aside: ‘(i) The Court was bound by the decision in Kitechnology BV v Unicor GmbH Plastmachinen [1995] FSR 765 to hold that breach of confidence was not a tort, but misuse of private information was a tort for the purposes of the rules governing service out of the jurisdiction. ‘damage’ in CPR PD 6B para 3.1(9) meant damage that was recoverable for the tort in question, and included damages for distress, recoverable in a claim for misuse of personal information. It followed that the claimants’ claims for misuse of private information fell within CPR PD 6B para 3.1(9)(a). In any event, the claim would have fallen within CPR PD 6B para 3.1(9)(b) because the damage resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction, namely the publication of the advertisements on the claimants’ screens. Further the claimants had established that there were serious issues to be tried as to whether the relevant information was ‘private’ information:
(ii) The claimants were given permission to rely on CPR PD 6B para 3.1(9) in respect of the DPA claim. There is no appeal against that order. The judge held there were serious issues to be tried (a) that the claimants’ claims for compensation under section 13 of the DPA did not require proof of pecuniary loss; and therefore that there was a good arguable claim for compensation under that section; and (b) that the BGI constituted personal data for the purposes of the DPA claim;
(iii) the claimants had a real and substantial cause of action in their claims for misuse of private information and under the DPA, and it would not be just to set aside service on the grounds that ‘the game was not worth the candle’;
(iv) the claimants could not bring themselves within the ‘injunction’ gateway under CPR PD 6B para 3.1(2) and dismissed the claimants’ applications to rely on CPR PD 6B paras 3.1(11) and (16). In respect of the claim for an injunction, the defendant had stopped the conduct complained of by time the Particulars of Claim were served, and had destroyed the relevant data. The judge said the application to rely on CPR PD 6B para 3.1(11) and (16) raised difficult questions of law and had been made too late. The judge therefore declared the court had no jurisdiction to try the claims for an injunction or the claims for breach of confidence, and the claim form and Particulars of Claim, in respect of those claims were set aside. These decisions are not the subject of any appeal.
Tugendhat J
[2014] EWHC 13 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 21, [2014] FSR 30, [2014] 1 WLR 4155, [2014] EMLR 14, [2014] 1 CLC 201
Bailii, WLRD
Data Protection Act 1998 4(4), Civil Procedure Rules 6.37
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited – Kitetechnology v Unicor GmbH Plastmaschinen 1995
It would not be correct to describe a infringement of breach of privacy as a tort. . .
Cited – Bacon v Automattic Inc QBD 2011
Tugendhat J set out the reasons why the existence of a jurisdiction to provide for service out of the jurisdiction, was previously considered doubtful but rightly considered that Cecil v Bayat has now settled the matter, because CPR 6.37(5)(b)(i) . .
Cited – Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and Others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and Others SC 22-May-2013
The claimant companies appealed against a reversal of their judgment against a former employee that she had misused their confidential trade secrets after leaving their employment. The companies manufactured and supplied bednets designed to prevent . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and Others CA 27-Mar-2015
Damages for breach of Data Protection
The claimants sought damages alleging that Google had, without their consent, collected personal data about them, which was resold to advertisers. They used the Safari Internet browser on Apple products. The tracking and collation of the claimants’ . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Jurisdiction
Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519957
