Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors

Google Inc v Vidal-Hall & Ors

Misuse of private information is recognised as a tort for purposes of service out of jurisdiction. 'Damage' under section 13 DPA includes non-pecuniary loss such as distress, and section 13(2) must be disapplied to comply with EU law and the Charter. There are serious issues to be tried as to whether BGI is personal data and whether the claims are substantial, justifying trial.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: Google Inc.; Claimant/respondent: Judith Vidal-Hall; Claimant/respondent: Robert Hann; Claimant/respondent: Marc Bradshaw; Intervener: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Jurisdiction and Substantive Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection Act 1998, Jurisdiction, Compensation for Distress
Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Data Protection Act 1998 Jurisdiction Compensation for Distress

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Google Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Judith Vidal-Hall

Claimant/respondent

Robert Hann

Claimant/respondent

Marc Bradshaw

Claimant/respondent

The Information Commissioner

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Jurisdiction and Substantive Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is misuse of private information a tort for purposes of service out of jurisdiction?
  2. 2 Does 'damage' in section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 include non-pecuniary loss such as distress?
  3. 3 Is Browser-Generated Information (BGI) 'personal data' under the DPA?

Ratio Decidendi

Misuse of private information is recognised as a tort for purposes of service out of jurisdiction. 'Damage' under section 13 DPA includes non-pecuniary loss such as distress, and section 13(2) must be disapplied to comply with EU law and the Charter. There are serious issues to be tried as to whether BGI is personal data and whether the claims are substantial, justifying trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Court has jurisdiction to try claims for misuse of private information and under the DPA.
  • Section 13(2) DPA disapplied; compensation for distress recoverable under section 13(1).