Gulati and others – Court Ruling (United Kingdom, 2015)
Court ruling (pre-GDPR, Directive 95/46/EC)
This national court ruling predates the GDPR and interprets earlier data protection law. It is excluded from cookie statistics and the Risk Calculator.
The UK court ruled that MGN Limited unlawfully accessed voicemail messages of several celebrities, causing distress and privacy invasion. This case emphasizes the importance of respecting privacy and the potential for significant damages when privacy is breached. It sets a precedent for how privacy violations are compensated in the UK.
What happened
MGN Limited accessed voicemail messages of celebrities without authorization for several years.
Who was affected
Eight celebrities, including actors and a footballer, whose voicemail messages were hacked.
What the authority found
The court decided that MGN Limited's actions constituted a misuse of private information, warranting compensation for privacy invasion.
Why this matters
This case highlights that privacy violations can lead to significant legal consequences and damages, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding personal information. It also clarifies that compensation can be awarded for privacy invasion itself, not just distress caused.
National Law Articles
Eight prominent individuals (including actors, a BBC executive, and a footballer) sued MGN Limited, publisher of the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror newspapers. Over approximately 7 years, MGN journalists and private investigators systematically accessed the claimants' voicemail messages without authorization using various techniques including exploiting default PIN codes and "farming" (accessing contacts' voicemail boxes for additional information). One claimant (Alan Yentob) had his voicemail hacked at least twice daily for 7 years. The hacked information was then used to publish articles about the claimants, with sources disguised as "friends" or "pals." Additionally, private investigators employed "blagging" techniques, using deception to obtain personal information from third parties. The claimants suffered distress and damage to personal relationships, as published articles revealed confidential information that only a select few knew, causing those individuals to suspect each other of leaking information to journalists. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judgment and rejected all four grounds of appeal. The court established several key principles for damages under the tort of misuse of private information: First, damages are not limited to distress and injury to feelings. The court held that compensation can be awarded for the invasion of privacy itself and loss of control over private information, independent of any distress caused. The court stated: "misappropriating (misusing) private information without causing upset is still a wrong." Second, the court rejected arguments that damages should be limited by reference to personal injury tariffs or discrimination/harassment bands. While such references provide a "sanity check," the court found that each invasive act may give rise to a separate cause of action, and the "atomized" approach of awarding separate damages for each article and each act of hacking was appropriate. Third, the court reject
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Gulati and others in UK
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Gulati and others - United Kingdom (2015). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: