Murphy v Callinan (Approved) [2021] IESC 52 (29 July 2021)

Murphy v Callinan (Approved) [2021] IESC 52 (29 July 2021)

The appellant succeeded on an important legal issue regarding the interpretation of the Data Protection Act but did not obtain the remedy sought; therefore, the costs order is varied so that the appellant is liable for 70% only of the High Court costs, with no order for costs in the Supreme Court.

Citation
[2021] IESC 52
Parties
Appellant: Peter Murphy; Respondent: Gary Callinan; Respondent: Julie Carroll; Respondent: ARB Underwriting Limited; Respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; partial success on legal issue.
Legal Topics
Injurious Falsehood, Negligence, Breach of Duty, Breach of Constitutional Rights, Data Controller Liability, Costs Allocation
Data Protection Tort Law Constitutional Law Insurance Law Injurious Falsehood Negligence Breach of Duty Breach of Constitutional Rights +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Murphy

Appellant

Gary Callinan

Respondent

Julie Carroll

Respondent

ARB Underwriting Limited

Respondent

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Data Protection Act 1988 preserves a judicial remedy for breach of duty by a data controller
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was correct to dismiss the proceedings for lack of a prima facie case in negligence, breach of duty, or injurious falsehood
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of costs given partial success on a legal issue

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant succeeded on an important legal issue regarding the interpretation of the Data Protection Act but did not obtain the remedy sought; therefore, the costs order is varied so that the appellant is liable for 70% only of the High Court costs, with no order for costs in the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; partial success on legal issue.

Orders

  • Appellant liable for 70% of High Court costs.
  • No order for costs in Supreme Court.