Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 (22 August 2025)

Farley & Ors v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 (22 August 2025)

Proof of third-party disclosure is not an essential ingredient of a data protection claim under the GDPR/DPA; the appellants have pleaded a reasonable basis for alleging infringement. Compensation for non-material damage does not require a threshold of seriousness or proof of distress. The claims cannot be dismissed as a class for abuse of process, but individual claims may be reviewed case by case.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1117
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Michael Farley; Appellants/claimants: Individuals identified in Annex 1 to the Claim Form; Respondent/defendant: Paymaster (1836) Limited (trading as Equiniti); Intervener: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Claims
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order striking out claims set aside; case remitted for further consideration of individual claims.
Legal Topics
GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018, Compensation for Data Breaches, Threshold of Seriousness, Non Material Damage, Abuse of Process, Collective Actions
Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure GDPR Data Protection Act 2018 Compensation for Data Breaches Threshold of Seriousness Non Material Damage +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Farley

Appellant/claimant

Individuals identified in Annex 1 to the Claim Form

Appellants/claimants

Paymaster (1836) Limited (trading as Equiniti)

Respondent/defendant

The Information Commissioner

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proof of third-party disclosure is required for a viable data protection claim under GDPR/DPA
  2. 2 Whether compensation for non-material damage under GDPR/DPA requires a threshold of seriousness or proof of distress
  3. 3 Whether the claims are an abuse of process under the Jameel principle

Ratio Decidendi

Proof of third-party disclosure is not an essential ingredient of a data protection claim under the GDPR/DPA; the appellants have pleaded a reasonable basis for alleging infringement. Compensation for non-material damage does not require a threshold of seriousness or proof of distress. The claims cannot be dismissed as a class for abuse of process, but individual claims may be reviewed case by case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court order striking out claims set aside; case remitted for further consideration of individual claims.

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim granted.
  • Claims remitted to the High Court for case-by-case review of compensation claims.