Lawyers at Byrne Wallace Shields say that a recent Supreme Court judgment has provided crucial clarity for practitioners, insurers, and claimants in cases involving data breaches.
The court ruled that, in litigation arising from data breaches, “distress, upset, and anxiety” do not constitute personal-injuries claims.
In a note on the firm’s website, the firm's lawyers say that the judgment will shape the future litigation of claims resulting from data breaches.
In Dillon v Irish Life Assurance PLC, the plaintiff brought a case against Irish Life Assurance claiming compensation for “distress, upset, anxiety, inconvenience, loss, and damage” resulting from six data breaches over a 12-year period.
He did not, however, seek authorisation from PIAB (now the Injuries Resolution Board), which is required before beginning an action seeking compensation for personal injuries.
The Circuit Court dismissed the case, and the High Court upheld its decision. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal, overturning the two previous court rulings.
The Byrne Wallace Shields (BWS) lawyers note that the Supreme Court found that:
The firm says that the ruling clarifies that claims solely for emotional harm (apart from recognised and diagnosable psychiatric injury) are now “definitively outside the PIAB framework”.
“Future claims for emotional distress, in the context of data breaches, now have procedural certainty for proceeding through the courts,” the lawyers state.
They note, however, Mr Justice Brian Murray’s comment that, where plaintiffs’ claims are solely for mental distress, upset, and anxiety, they will fall outside the PIAB regime, “but they cannot expect anything other than very, very modest awards”.