In the case, Prismall v Google UK Ltd and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 1516, the Court of Appeal upheld the strike-out of a claim for the misuse of private information as it could not be established that each member of the representative class had the expectation of privacy. The ruling highlights the strict requirements that claimants must meet when seeking to bring collective actions for privacy violations.
Prismall v Google UK Ltd
Background
Mr. Prismall issued a representative claim pursuant to CPR 19.8, against Google and DeepMind, representing 1.6 million claimants with regard to the alleged misuse of identifiable medical data. The claim was related to the use of this data for the development of the clinical app Streams, which was used for direct care from February 2017 onwards.
The central argument was that medical information within the doctor-patient relationship inherently carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mr. Prismall’s claim sought to treat the matter collectively, arguing that no individualised assessment of privacy expectations was needed, and compensation could be assessed on the basis of the ‘lowest common denominator’ claimant.
The High Court struck out the claim, ruling that not every potential claimant had a realistic chance of proving a reasonable expectation of privacy. More importantly, the judge found that the claim failed to meet the “same interest” requirement necessary for representative actions under CPR 19.8.
Mr. Prismall appealed this decision.
Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, reinforcing several important principles related to representative claims for misuse of private information. The Court’s reasoning centred on the difficulty of treating a class as a whole when the facts of each potential claimant can vary widely. The key findings were:
- The Expectation of Privacy is Case-Specific: The Court accepted that, generally, patient-identifiable information is private and confidential. However, it rejected the claimants’ argument that all medical information from a doctor-patient context automatically carries a reasonable expectation of privacy, except in the case of direct care. Crucially, the Court noted that where individuals shared their sensitive medical information in public on social media, their claim to privacy is lessened, thus undermining the claim for the entire representative class.
- The ‘Same Interest’ Requirement: The Court emphasised that for a representative claim to succeed, the claimants must all share the same interest in the matter at hand.
Comment
Whilst this decision does not establish new legal principles, it highlights several practical challenges faced by data privacy claimants in representative actions, particularly with regard to the satisfaction of the ‘same interest’ requirement.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is a Trainee Solicitor in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, please contact Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us