A previous blog discussed an interim application by the Duke of Sussex in a telephone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), a copy of which can be read here.
That case along with three other Claimants’ claims has proceeded to trial. Mr Justice Fancourt, the presiding judge at trial, confirmed that the four Claimants’ cases had been selected to proceed to trial, as, given that many more Claimants were waiting in the wings to pursue their claim, these four Claimants’ claims covered the majority of the issues affecting the other Claimants. The rationale therefore was no doubt to encourage settlement in the other cases with a view to avoiding having to try all of the outstanding claims.
Out of the four Claimants, the cases for Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman were dismissed. The judge found that, whilst these Claimants were the subject of unlawful information gathering, if these Claimants had been reasonably attentive to the news and social media between 2012 and 2015, they should have realised that they had a possible claim that they should have investigated.
The Court’s decision
The Court found in favour of Prince Harry and Michael Turner. An interesting part of the judgment relates to whether Prince Harry and Michael Turner could claim distress arising from the publication of the articles based on the unlawful gathering of their personal information notwithstanding the fact that the judge had previously struck out causes of action relating to the articles being published on the basis that they were statute barred. The judge found that:
“It would, in my view, be contrary to good sense and good law to conclude that where private information is effectively stolen, in order to publish it, the recoverable loss did not extend to the consequences of the publication. The fact that the publication was a separate legal wrong that could be sued for separately does not make a difference. Accordingly, the court is entitled to award claimants damages for distress that they suffered when their private information that had been unlawfully obtained appeared in the Mirror Group’s newspapers.”
The judge found that, in respect of Prince Harry, 15 out of the 33 articles complained of arose out of telephone hacking, and in respect of Mr Turner, telephone hacking or unlawful information gathering was the result of 4 of the 27 articles complained of. Accordingly, the judge awarded Prince Harry the sum of £140,600 and Mr Turner £31,650. Both of these sums included aggravated damages on the basis that two directors of the Defendant knew of the unlawful activity and could have put a stop to it but didn’t.
The successful outcome of two of the Claimants will no doubt put wind in the sails of the remaining Claimants. The Defendant will no doubt try to use the successful limitation defence deployed against Miss Sanderson and Miss Wightman with a view to challenging a certain cohort of those Claimants. This judgment will therefore undoubtedly lead to the resolution of a number of the claims before they reach a trial. How many will remain to be tried is yet to be seen.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in commercial disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us