Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 October 2019)

Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 October 2019)

Damages are in principle capable of being awarded for loss of control of data under Article 23 and section 13 DPA, even if there is no pecuniary loss and no distress. The members of the class have the same interest in the claim, as each suffered loss of control over browser generated information (BGI) taken by Google without consent. The judge's exercise of discretion under CPR Part 19.6(2) was based on an incorrect interpretation of 'damage' and 'same interest'.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1599
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Richard Lloyd; Defendant/respondent: Google LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Representative Actions, Damages for Data Breach, Loss of Control, User Damages, Interpretation of Data Protection Act 1998
Data Protection Privacy Law Civil Procedure Representative Actions Damages for Data Breach Loss of Control User Damages Interpretation of Data Protection Act 1998

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Lloyd

Claimant/appellant

Google LLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether uniform per capita damages are recoverable for data protection infringement without proof of pecuniary loss or distress under section 13 DPA
  2. 2 Whether members of the class have the same interest under CPR Part 19.6(1)
  3. 3 Whether the judge's exercise of discretion under CPR Part 19.6(2) can be vitiated

Ratio Decidendi

Damages are in principle capable of being awarded for loss of control of data under Article 23 and section 13 DPA, even if there is no pecuniary loss and no distress. The members of the class have the same interest in the claim, as each suffered loss of control over browser generated information (BGI) taken by Google without consent. The judge's exercise of discretion under CPR Part 19.6(2) was based on an incorrect interpretation of 'damage' and 'same interest'.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to serve Google LLC outside the jurisdiction granted
  • Claim may proceed as a representative action under CPR Part 19.6