![]() The requirement is that the representative's interests do not conflict with those of others. The "same interest" test for representative actions does not mean that each claimant needs to have identical claims or interests.The former is a strict liability tort where damages are available per se, the latter require proof of damage. Damages for the tort of misuse of private information and damages for a claim for breach of data protection legislation are not subject to the same test.Damages for non-trivial breaches of s13(1) of the DPA require proof of financial loss or distress, " loss of control" of personal data is not enough.While the Supreme Court disagreed with Warby J's characterisation of the claim as " officious litigation", accepting that representative actions under CPR 19.6 are available in damages claims, it held that such actions cannot proceed where there is no evidence of damage to any claimant, still less the entire class. Restoring Warby J's finding at first instance, it held that damages for breach of the DPA are not actionable without proof of financial loss or distress. In a judgment which will have a profound effect on collective redress, both in the context of data protection litigation and more generally, and which will be welcomed by data controllers and by the cyber-insurance industry, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal (summarised here). ![]() In Lloyd v Google LLC UKSC 50, the Supreme Court 1 unanimously agreed that Mr Lloyd's claim against Google for breach of his (and those of 4 million other Apple iphone users) data protection rights under s13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the " DPA") should not proceed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |