As a longstanding proponent of the law of bleedin’ common sense, I was delighted to read this case recently.
In Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP 2021, the claimant was claiming distress due to an email chasing outstanding private school fees being wrongly sent to another person. In short, the judge dismissed the case, and the claimant received a bill for costs.
The reason I love this case is this killer sentence from the judge:
“In my judgment no person of ordinary fortitude would reasonably suffer the distress claimed arising in these circumstances in the 21st Century, in a case where a single breach was quickly remedied.”
To be fair the circumstances were, as always, very relevant:
- there was little personal information on the incorrectly emailed letter
- the letter was incorrectly emailed to only one recipient who informed the sender
- the recipient was asked to delete the email immediately and confirmed she did so
Although it’s now clear that it is possible to sue for distress alone (i.e., even if there is no financial loss), there is still a threshold of distress that must be suffered and evidence of such.
It makes complete sense to me that the law should recognise distress alone as a form of damage for data protection infringements. It would not otherwise reconcile with the ethos of data protection, which is closely linked to the right to privacy. Human rights are not about financial loss.
However, as a businesswoman and protector of businesses, the shoot of a sensible balance to protect businesses against those looking to settle a score/ looking for a payday against giving recourse to those who may have genuinely suffered distress is very good to see.
If you have any questions about the above case please contact tracey@law-point.co.uk or call 01202 729444.
