Court of Appeal clarifies costs recovery in mixed media and personal injury claims

29 Jan 2025Court Report

Court of Appeal decides on costs recovery in a case involving media claims and personal injury

Background

The Court of Appeal has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Nathaniel Birley and Virginer Bell, personal representatives of the estate of Ms Rosa Taylor, against Heritage Independent Living Ltd. The case centred around the complex interplay of costs recovery in claims involving both media-related breaches and personal injury.

Case Details

The appeal arose from an incident where Heritage Independent Living Ltd, a recruitment agency, allegedly disclosed Ms Rosa Taylor's previous convictions to a friend without her consent. This was claimed to be a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018, as well as a misuse of private information and breach of confidence. Heritage contended the disclosure was inadvertent and believed to be consented to by Ms Taylor.

Legal Proceedings

Following Ms Taylor's death in September 2021, her personal representatives continued the claim, which included demands for damages for personal injury due to alleged mental health impacts from the disclosure. The claim also involved media and communication law aspects, given the nature of the alleged breach.

District Court Ruling

The initial ruling by District Judge Nicolle set aside the service of the claim form due to late service and struck out the claim, citing an abuse of process. The judge also ordered the claimants to pay costs, disapplying the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) protection typically available in personal injury claims.

Appeal and Court of Appeal Decision

On appeal, HHJ Owen overturned the decision to strike out the claim, ruling that the claimants' conduct did not amount to an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, emphasising that the claim for personal injury was legitimate and that QOCS protection should apply.

Costs Recovery

The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of 'cherry-picking' between media claims and personal injury claims for costs recovery, concluding that both could coexist in the same proceedings. This decision clarified that QOCS protection applies to claims for personal injury damages, even when intertwined with media-related claims.

Implications

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving mixed claims, particularly where personal injury claims are combined with media law breaches. It underscores the importance of clear procedural conduct and adherence to pre-action protocols.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision provides clarity on the application of QOCS in mixed claims, reinforcing the protection offered to claimants in personal injury cases while navigating the complexities of media law.