Underwood & Anor v Bounty UK Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 888 (QB) (13 April 2022)

Underwood & Anor v Bounty UK Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 888 (QB) (13 April 2022)

The Second Defendant did not process or make available the Claimants' data to the Bounty representative; any access was unauthorised and not attributable to the Second Defendant. No breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 or misuse of private information tort was established. The claim fails as the Second Defendant is not liable for the acts of the Bounty representative.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 888
Parties
First Claimant: Pamela Underwood; Second Claimant: Dominic Underwood; First Defendant: Bounty UK Limited; Second Defendant: Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Misuse of Private Information and Breach of Data Protection Act 1998 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed against Second Defendant; judgment entered for Second Defendant.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Act 1998, Hospital Data Security, Vicarious Liability, Exemplary Damages
Data Protection Privacy Law Tort Law Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Act 1998 Hospital Data Security Vicarious Liability Exemplary Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pamela Underwood

First Claimant

Dominic Underwood

Second Claimant

Bounty UK Limited

First Defendant

Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Misuse of Private Information and Breach of Data Protection Act 1998 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Second Defendant breach the Data Protection Act 1998 by failing to prevent unauthorised access to Claimants' data?
  2. 2 Did the Second Defendant commit a misuse of private information tort by allowing Bounty representative access to Claimants' information?
  3. 3 What information was obtained by the Bounty representative and how?

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant did not process or make available the Claimants' data to the Bounty representative; any access was unauthorised and not attributable to the Second Defendant. No breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 or misuse of private information tort was established. The claim fails as the Second Defendant is not liable for the acts of the Bounty representative.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against Second Defendant; judgment entered for Second Defendant.