Data Claims and the Small Claims Track

In another helpful judgment for compensators  the court confirmed in QRC & 2 others v A Local Authority that the claimants’ data breach claims were suitable for the small claims track (SCT  ). Costs in the SCT are not recoverable from the other side even for successful parties and thus legal spend is limited.

The three claimants sought damages for distress arising out of a data breach incident when the minutes of a safeguarding meeting were accidentally sent to the wrong addressee. A breach of UK GDPR was admitted. Following service of proceedings and filing of a defence, the court proposed allocation to the fast track but with liberty to apply to the court to reconsider the decision. On application by the defendant, the claim was allocated to the small claims track. With reference to Part 26 CPR, the judge held: 

• Valuation: whilst the claims’ pleaded value exceeded £10k, this was  ‘fanciful’. The claim was worth significantly less than the £10,000 SCT threshold.
• Complexity: the argument that a cause of action for misuse of private information (MoPI) added to the complexity was rejected.
• Hearing:  with breach admitted, any hearing would be no longer than three hours.
• Costs: the inability to recover costs in the SCT was not a reason for allocation to the fast track.
• Minors: claims on behalf of children can be dealt with in the SCT.

An application for permission to appeal was refused on paper and the claimants’ request for an oral hearing of the application was similarly rejected. In doing so, the court affirmed three important points (i) valuation is a matter for the court to assess and it will not simply accept the value stated on a claim form; (ii) the claim of at least one the three claimants needed to have a value in excess of £10,000 for the claims to reach the fast track; and (iii) whilst there was some complexity there was  nothing that took the claims outside the ambit of the SCT.

Comment

This helpful decision is in line with previous judgments that confirm the suitability of this type ofclaim for the SCT (see for example Ashley v Amplifon Ltd [2021] QB and Johnson v Eastlight Community Homes [2021] EWHC 3069). The court again rejected the argument that the potential absence of costs recovery was a reason not to allocate to the SCT. This follows the judgment in Cleary v Marson (Holdings) Ltd [2021] EWHC 3809 which confirmed that SCT allocation generally allows a litigant to pursue a claim without exposure to an adverse costs order and therefore promotes access to justice.

Weightmans acted for the Council and its insurers, Zurich Municipal in this case.