Gulati and others v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch)

Citation

• Full case name: Gulati and others v MGN Ltd
• Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch)
• Court: High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
• Judge: Mr Justice Mann
• Judgment date: 21 May 2015
• Appeal: Representative Claimants v MGN Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 (Court of Appeal, 17 December 2015) — appeals dismissed

Facts

Eight representative claimants brought claims against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and The People arising from the interception of voicemail messages and related activities, including the use of private investigators to obtain private information.

Liability was not the issue at this trial. The question was how damages for misuse of private information should be assessed where the wrongdoing had been extensive and long-running.

Issue

Are damages for misuse of private information limited to compensation for distress, or can a claimant also be compensated for the misuse of the information itself — the loss of privacy, autonomy and control — independently of the upset it caused?

Decision

Mann J held that damages are not confined to distress. Compensation is available for the loss of privacy or autonomy arising from the misuse of the information itself, in addition to any distress, and the assessment should reflect the nature and extent of the intrusion, its duration, the sensitivity of the information and the way it was obtained and used.

The resulting awards were substantially higher than earlier privacy awards. To take one example from the schedule to the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Alan Yentob was awarded £85,000, a figure which took into account the extent and nature of the hacking, the use of private investigators, distress and a small amount of aggravated damages.

MGN appealed on the level of compensation. In December 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Arden LJ noted that the case concerned an exceptional situation: there had been misuses of private information beyond the court’s ability to know and count, the circulation was very large, and the information touched on the most intimate parts of some claimants’ lives.

Why it matters for insurance

Gulati reset the quantum expectations for privacy claims in England and Wales. Before it, privacy awards were generally modest and reserved accordingly. After it, a serious and sustained intrusion can support a five-figure or six-figure award per claimant even without any financial loss at all.

That matters for anyone rating or buying media liability, cyber or professional indemnity cover with a privacy extension. Multi-claimant privacy and data claims are now a real limit exposure rather than a nuisance-value one, and the way a policy aggregates them — one claim or many — can be the difference between a manageable loss and an exhausted limit.

For businesses generally, the case is a reminder that a claim can be worth a great deal even where nobody lost any money. Wordings that respond only to financial loss, or that measure the excess against pecuniary damage, may not behave as expected.

See also

• Campbell v MGN — the House of Lords origin of the misuse of private information claim
• Lloyd v Google — why loss of control alone did not support a representative action
• Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards — the de minimis threshold at the other end of the scale
• Stadler v Currys Group — modern low-value data claims and how the courts handle them

References

• Gulati and others v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch) (Mann J, 21 May 2015)
• Representative Claimants v MGN Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 (Court of Appeal, 17 December 2015)
• Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22

Frequently asked questions

Can you recover damages for misuse of private information without financial loss?

Yes. Mann J held that compensation is not confined to distress and that the loss of privacy and autonomy caused by the misuse of the information is itself compensable. The Court of Appeal dismissed MGN's appeal against the level of the awards.

How large were the awards?

Far larger than previous English privacy awards. The schedule to the Court of Appeal's judgment records, for example, an award of £85,000 to Alan Yentob, reflecting the extent and nature of the hacking, the use of private investigators, distress and a small amount of aggravated damages.

What does this mean for insurance limits?

Multi-claimant privacy and data claims can now reach serious money without any financial loss being proved. How the policy aggregates such claims, and whether the excess is measured against pecuniary loss, become important questions at placement rather than at claim.

This page is insurance information for UK businesses, not legal advice. It summarises a reported judgment and explains why insurance buyers and brokers refer to it; it is not a substitute for reading the judgment or taking advice on your own facts. Case summaries are necessarily short and omit detail. Position stated as at August 2026.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.