July 5, 2025

Privacy Damages: Case Law Examples and Awards

The assessment of damages in misuse of private information / Privacy claims under English law has evolved significantly over the past two decades. From unauthorised tabloid exposés to covert image-based abuse and institutional data breaches, the courts have developed their approach to compensatory awards. This article provides a detailed survey of key decisions in which damages have been awarded for privacy breaches, examining the legal principles applied and the factual circumstances that shaped quantum.

In this article, we explain how the courts in England and Wales award damages in privacy claims, using real life examples from recent legal cases. From media intrusions to social media breaches and revenge porn, these case summaries show what factors affect the level of compensation, including the sensitivity of the information, the scale of disclosure, and the emotional impact on the individual.

Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)

Max Mosley, the former motorsport chief, was secretly filmed engaging in consensual private sexual activities. The News of the World published a sensational article and video alleging a “Nazi-themed” orgy. Mosley sued for breach of privacy (misuse of private information).

The High Court (Eady J) awarded Mosley £60,000 in damages, at the time, the highest privacy award by a wide margin. This case is significant for setting a new benchmark and for Eady J’s articulation of privacy damage principles. He emphasised that the sexual and deeply private nature of the information, combined with the global humiliation Mosley suffered, justified an exceptional award. Mosley’s case was described as life-changing the intrusion had a profound effect on him.

Eady J outlined that damages should compensate for Mosley’s distress, embarrassment, and loss of dignity, and also serve to vindicate his rights. However, he was careful to avoid double-counting any vindicatory element separately if the distress award was already substantial. The judge also considered proportionality. He noted that £60k, while high for privacy, was still below some serious libel awards and well below the top personal injury awards, which then exceeded £200k. This was meant to show the award was large but not exorbitant.

Mosley thus established that a truly shocking privacy breach, especially involving sexual privacy, could attract a five figure sum that rivalled major defamation cases. It also demonstrated the impact of a defendant’s sensationalist presentation, the tabloid’s lurid and partly misleading portrayal of Mosley’s private life aggravated the harm, and the award reflected that. For several years, £60k stood as the high-water mark, until the phone-hacking cases emerged.

2016 – TLT & Others v Home Office: Data Breach and Modest Awards

In TLT & Ors v Home Office [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB), a highly sensitive data leak occurred. The Home Office accidentally published an online spreadsheet containing personal details of 1,598 lead asylum seekers. Six representative claimants, anonymised, sued after their names, ages, locations and other details were exposed. This was a non-deliberate, bureaucratic privacy breach, as opposed to a media exposé.

Mitting J awarded damages ranging from £2,500 up to £12,500 per claimant. The amounts varied based on how identifiable each claimant was and any particular distress they suffered, for example, some claimants had feared retribution in their home countries if their asylum status was revealed. These awards were relatively modest, reflecting that the disclosure, while serious, was inadvertent and the information, though private, was mostly personal data, names and statuses, rather than intimate life details.

The judge affirmed the principle from Gulati that even loss of control of personal data is compensable, but he folded that into the general awards rather than itemising it. The key factors here were the scope of dissemination, the information was online but probably not widely accessed before removal, the sensitivity of the data, asylum status is private, but not as inherently intimate as health or sex life, and the consequences, claimants were distressed and concerned for safety, but no evidence of actual harm like attacks or severe trauma. Mitting J treated the Home Office’s breach as serious but at the lower end of the spectrum compared to, say, a salacious press scandal.

TLT is an important example of a non-media privacy breach resulting in liability. It showed that governmental or accidental leaks can lead to damages, but the quantum will be kept proportionate to the impact. The top award of £12,500 went to a claimant who arguably had the most at-risk circumstances, others got as little as £2,500 where the exposure was less impactful. This case often serves as a benchmark for data privacy breaches, including those overlapping with data protection law, indicating that where distress is present but not extreme, five-figure sums are unlikely to be exceeded absent aggravating features. It’s also a reminder that even without any malice, an institution can be liable for privacy lapses, though the lack of malice and limited spread kept damages on the modest side.

2018 – Sir Cliff Richard OBE v BBC:

Richard v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) in which Sir Cliff Richard sued the BBC for broadcasting a police raid on his home. In 2014, the BBC, tipped off by police, filmed and reported live from a raid investigating historical sexual abuse allegations against Sir Cliff, who was never arrested or charged and was completely innocent of the claims. The coverage, including helicopter footage of his home, ran throughout the day and was picked up worldwide. Sir Cliff claimed this was a gross misuse of private information, effectively revealing to the public that he was under investigation, which ought to have remained a private matter until charge.

Mann J awarded £210,000 in general damages to Sir Cliff, which included £20,000 aggravated damages. This was, and remains one of the highest-ever privacy awards against a media organisation.

The award reflected several factors. First, the nature of the information, being a suspect in a sex offence investigation, even truthfully, was deemed extremely sensitive, carrying a massive stigma. Mann J put it at the very top end of private information, given the damage it could do to one’s reputation and dignity. Second, the scope of publication was vast. Millions watched the BBC’s reports, and the story went global, exponentially amplifying the harm. Third, the manner of presentation aggravated the damage: the BBC’s coverage was sensational, using a helicopter and treating the raid as a scoop, which Mann J found unnecessarily intrusive and humiliating.

The aggravated £20k was specifically due to the BBC’s post-raid conduct, notably, entering the footage for a journalism award and initially defending its actions as exemplary journalism. This lack of remorse and celebration of the intrusion added to Sir Cliff’s injury. Mann J also considered libel comparators: he noted Mosley’s £60k and other libel awards to ensure the £210k for Sir Cliff was not out of line. He concluded that being falsely accused in libel or being truthfully but privately put in a bad light, as in privacy, can be equally devastating, and Sir Cliff’s situation, a worldwide broadcast of a highly stigmatising allegation, albeit true that he was investigated, justified a sum at the very high end, exceeding typical libel payouts.

For quantum, Richard demonstrated that a one-off incident can still yield six-figure damages if the content is highly sensitive and the manner of publication egregious. The BBC argued Sir Cliff’s claim was essentially about reputation and should thus be limited like a libel claim, where, for example, non-existent or true allegations don’t yield damages. Mr. Justice Mann rejected that, but he did look at libel precedents, he noted Mosley’s £60k and other libel awards to ensure the £210k for Sir Cliff was not out of line. He concluded that being falsely accused in libel or being truthfully but privately put in a bad light, as in privacy can be equally devastating, and Sir Cliff’s situation  a worldwide broadcast of a highly stigmatising allegation, albeit true that he was investigated justified a sum at the very high end, exceeding typical libel payouts.

2019 – Bull v Desporte: Limited Publication, Intimate Content

Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1650 (QB) involved a very personal misuse of private information. Mr. Bull’s ex-partner, Ms. Desporte, self-published an e-book about their relationship. The book contained intimate sexual details about Mr. Bull and a few private photographs of him. However, it had a very limited publication, only about 50 copies were downloaded in total.

Knowles J awarded Mr. Bull £12,500 in damages for misuse of private information. This was broken down into £10,000 in general damages and £2,500 in aggravated damages. An additional nominal £50 was awarded for a related copyright claim since Ms. Desporte used Mr. Bull’s photos without permission, but the core harm was the privacy invasion.

Despite the small audience, the information revealed was of the highest intimacy, details of Mr. Bull’s sex life and private moments. The judge noted that sexual information is at the top end of the privacy spectrum, so even a tiny publication can merit a significant sum. Had the book been widely circulated, the award would have been much higher; but because only,50 people read it, the overall impact was contained. The aggravated £2,500 was not analysed in the judgment, but it reflected the sense of betrayal and the boastful, malicious tone of the book. Ms. Desporte’s motive appeared to be to kiss and tell for self aggrandisement or revenge, which aggravated the hurt to Mr. Bull.

Bull v Desporte is instructive for balancing quality vs quantity of intrusion. It shows that when extremely sensitive information, here, sexual life is disclosed, courts will start at a higher baseline of damages, even if the reach is small. In Bull’s case, £10k general damages for an audience of 50 indicates the nature of the information was considered serious and shocking.. Conversely, the limited scope kept the award in the five-figure range rather than six, the judge mentioned that with wider circulation, Mr. Bull’s compensation would have been higher.

2020 – Reid v Price; ST v L Primary School; JQL v NTP; Sicri v Associated Newspapers: Varied Scenarios in One Year

The year 2020 saw a series of diverse privacy cases,

In Reid v Price [2020] EWHC 594 (QB) the dispute, involved Alex Reid a TV personality suing his ex-wife Katie Price. Price had shown a private video of Reid engaged in sexual activities to a studio audience and had threatened to publish it, breaching confidentiality agreements between them. Reid claimed misuse of private information and breach of confidence. £25,000 was awarded. Notably, this sum was effectively a cap Reid had placed on his claim, possibly to keep the court fee to a lower amount. The judge indicated the case merited at least that and might have attracted more if not capped. The information, sexual content on video was highly private, and even though dissemination had been limited so far, the threat of wider publication and the emotional distress from that threat justified a substantial award.

ST (A Minor) and another v L Primary School [2020] EWHC 1046 (QB) is a rare example of a privacy claim against a school. A primary school, attempting to address parents’ concerns, sent a letter to all parents describing the behavioural difficulties of a young pupil, ST’s child, including details of the child’s condition, thereby identifying and singling out the child. This was a well-intentioned but misguided action that disclosed sensitive medical and educational information about the child to the school community. The court found a misuse of private information as well as breach of data protection and the child’s human rights. The awards were £1500 to the child and £3000 to the mother. These low figures reflected that the breach, while wrong, was fairly contained in just the school community and not done to embarrass or sensationalise, in fact, it was arguably an attempt to solve a problem. The harm was distress and upset, but not a life altering trauma. ST v L Primary is often cited to show that limited, localised disclosures with benign motives will result in only modest damages in the low thousands.

JQL v NTP [2020] EWHC 1349 (QB) was a family privacy breach via social media. The defendant was the claimant JQL’s uncle, who, in a misguided effort to seek family help, posted deeply private information on Facebook about JQL’s self-harm and mental health treatment. The post, containing highly sensitive medical/psychological details about a minor, was public for around 3 hours and likely seen by 20–35 people beyond immediate family. The High Court awarded £15,000 to JQL, which included an aggravated element. Despite the brief and limited publication, the betrayal of trust by a family member and the extreme sensitivity of the information, a teenager’s mental health struggles, made it a serious invasion. JQL experienced enduring distress, humiliation, and a breakdown of trust within her family. The judge took into account JQL’s particular vulnerability, illustrating the egg-shell skull principle, she was severely affected, so she was compensated for that full impact. This case is example that even a short-lived disclosure to a small audience can fetch five figure damages when the private information is of a profoundly personal nature. It also illustrated the emerging issue of social media as a vehicle for privacy breaches: informal online posts by relatives or acquaintances can be actionable if they divulge private facts.

In Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 3541 (QB) Mr. Sicri, a Libyan man, was falsely suspected in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing investigation, but was never charged. The Daily Mail (MailOnline) published an article identifying him as someone under investigation. Being publicly named in that context was private information because it implicated him in something damaging despite no charges. Warby J found misuse of private information, similar in principle to the later ZXC v Bloomberg case on suspects’ rights. Sicri received £83,000 total: comprised of £50,000 in general damages which included an aggravated element and £33,000 in special damages. The special damages were for pecuniary losses, specifically, costs Mr. Sicri incurred for legal and technical efforts to get the article taken down from the internet. In assessing general damages, Warby J echoed that injury to feelings and health from privacy breaches is compensable as Mr. Sicri suffered stress-related illness from the ordeal. Importantly, Warby reemphasised that pure reputational damage should not be claimed via privacy, if Sicri felt defamed by implication, being linked to terrorism, the remedy would lie in libel if the information were false. Since Sicri’s claim was strictly about the wrongful exposure of private facts, true that he was questioned, Warby limited the damages to privacy harm: distress, anxiety, loss of dignity and autonomy. The aggravated aspect was due to factors like the sensationalist tone of the article and the grave personal consequences Sicri faced loss of job, community ostracism which the Mail should have foreseen. Sicri shows that when media publications unjustifiably name individuals in sensitive contexts, like uncharged suspects, courts can and will give high awards. It also illustrates awarding special damages in privacy claims for direct financial costs,here, takedown efforts, something relatively rare but allowed when evidence shows monetary loss.

2023 – FGX v Gaunt and AXB v Metwally: New Frontiers (Revenge Porn and Medical Voyeurism)

FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) was a “revenge porn” civil case one of the largest privacy awards to date. The claimant anonymised as FGX had been in a relationship with the defendant, Mr. Gaunt. Unbeknownst to her, he covertly recorded videos of her naked showering, sleeping, etc. After their breakup, he uploaded these intimate videos to a pornographic website, even including FGX’s face and some identifying details. The content spread online, an expert opined it likely proliferated beyond the initial site. FGX suffered severe consequences, she was diagnosed with chronic PTSD, had an enduring personality change, and lived with the terror that those images could resurface anytime.

The High Court awarded a total of £97,041. This comprised £60,000 in general damages and £37,041 in special damages. In awarding £60k general damages, the court drew comparisons to Mosley and other cases, but found FGX’s situation even worse in some respects. Key factors were the information was extremely intimate, videos of nudity, arguably as private as it gets, the potential spread was global and uncontrolled, and the betrayal of trust was grave. An aggravating aspect was Gaunt’s likely motive of malice and possible profit evidence showed he may have earned money from the uploads.

FGX’s award of £60k general damages was likened to serious personal injury compensation,indeed, the judge likely had in mind that severe PTSD can attract around that amount in tort cases. This case confirms that English courts will respond robustly to modern privacy harms like image-based sexual abuse.

AXB v Metwally [2023] EWHC 2470 (KB): Another anonymised case, involving a gross breach of medical trust. The claimant, AXB, was an 18-year-old patient who visited a doctor (the defendant, Dr. Metwally) for back pain. The doctor secretly video-recorded her during consultations, including when she was undressed for examinations. He kept these voyeuristic recordings for himself. Importantly, unlike FGX, these images were never disseminated to the public; they were discovered when police investigated the doctor so AXB learned of it after the fact, through the authorities.

The court awarded around £51,000 total, split into £38,000 general damages and roughly £13,000 special damages. The special damages covered specific items, about £3,900 for future therapy, £250 for travel to treatment, and approximately £8,942 for AXB’s reduced employment prospects.

The nature of the intrusion was highly personal, being covertly filmed nude by one’s doctor is a shocking violation. Even though those videos didn’t reach the internet, the mere fact AXB’s privacy was invaded in such a way caused her significant trauma, she was diagnosed with PTSD moderately severe, though with good prognosis if treated. Aggravating factors included the breach of trust, a doctor-patient relationship, meant to be sacrosanct, was abused, and the effect on AXB’s ability to trust medical professionals going forward. The court did make a modest uplift for aggravation due to this breach of trust, though it wasn’t separated out explicitly, it was folded into the £38k.

AXB’s case is also notable for its special damages, the court compensated future therapy costs and even a form of loss of earning capacity (£8,942) due to the psychological injury.

Special Damages in Privacy Claims (Therapy, Takedown Costs, etc.)

While most damages in privacy cases are general damages (a single lump sum for distress, loss of privacy, etc.), claimants can also recover special damages for quantifiable financial losses caused by the misuse of private information. Special damages in this context cover out-of-pocket expenses or monetary losses directly resulting from the privacy breach, which can be proved with evidence.

Some examples from recent cases:

Takedown / Remedial Costs: In Sicri v Associated Newspapers (2020), Mr. Sicri was awarded £33,000 in special damages. This represented the cost of legal and technical efforts to get the offending articles removed from the internet. Sicri had to spend money to mitigate the ongoing harm of the online publication. The court recognised this as a direct consequence of the privacy violation.

Therapy and Medical Expenses: In AXB v Metwally (2023), the claimant received £3,900 specifically for future psychotherapy costs and £250 for travel to treatment sessions. These figures were supported by medical evidence outlining the treatment needed for her PTSD.
Privacy breaches can sometimes affect a person’s employment or income. In AXB, about £8,942 was awarded for AXB’s reduced employment prospects due to psychological injury (essentially a diminished earning capacity award). While uncommon, this shows courts can compensate for career impact, here calculated in a way similar to personal injury claims for a young person whose PTSD might limit her future job opportunities.

Claimants should gather receipts, invoices, and expert evidence where applicable to substantiate these claims. As privacy litigation continues to evolve, especially in the era of online harms, we might see more special damages claims for example, costs of engaging cybersecurity experts, or relocating.

No Exemplary Damages – and the Reputational Overlap Issue

Exemplary (Punitive) Damages: English courts do not award exemplary or punitive damages in misuse of private information claims. Even in the most outrageous cases e.g. the deliberate, malicious conduct in FGX v Gaunt or the phone hacking in Gulati the awards have been high but explicitly compensate for injury (including aggravated damages for extra hurt), not to punish the defendant. The rationale is that punishment is not the role of civil privacy law; it’s either for the criminal law or regulatory fines (e.g., ICO fines for data breaches) if applicable.

Practically, this means claimants shouldn’t expect a punishment” multiplier on damages. The worst behaviour by a defendant will be reflected by aggravated damages, which require evidence of added distress or affront caused by that behaviour. For instance, the fact that Mr. Gaunt in FGX acted with malice and maybe profit increased FGX’s distress, which was compensated but the court didn’t add a separate punitive sum just to teach him a lesson. Similarly, tabloids acting recklessly or a council litigating aggressively as in Bekoe might, inflame the judge, but the response is to fold that into a higher compensatory award, not to tag on a fine. English law remains wary of exemplary damages generally, and in privacy cases there’s been no departure from that stance.

Reputational Harm in Privacy Claims

The extent to which reputational harm is compensable within the tort of misuse of private information remains unsettled. While it is well established that damages may be awarded for distress, loss of dignity, and the infringement of autonomy, the question of whether injury to reputation—arising from the publication of true private information—falls within the ambit of privacy damages has prompted divergent judicial approaches.

In Richard v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch), Mann J awarded Sir Cliff Richard £210,000 in damages following the BBC’s live broadcast of a police raid on his home. The judge accepted that the claimant’s reputation had been seriously harmed by the publication, and he included that reputational impact as part of the general damages for the privacy breach. He held that reputational damage may properly fall within the scope of privacy law where the claimant had a reasonable expectation that the underlying information—here, the fact of an uncharged police investigation—would remain private.

However, this approach has not been followed uniformly. In Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 3541 (QB), Warby J declined to award any damages for reputational injury. The claimant had similarly been named in the context of a terrorism investigation but was never charged. The judge held that compensation in privacy claims is directed to personal distress and loss of autonomy, not damage to reputation. Reputational injury, he emphasised, falls within the province of defamation, and must be pleaded and defended as such. The court was unwilling to allow privacy to function as a substitute for libel, particularly where issues of meaning, truth or public interest had not been adjudicated.

The tension between these positions remains unresolved at appellate level. The Supreme Court in Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 acknowledged the reputational consequences of disclosing that an individual is under criminal investigation, but declined to express a concluded view on whether such consequences are separately compensable within privacy damages. The Court observed that the point “may merit consideration” in a future case.

Practical Lessons for Claimants

The evolving case law on privacy damages offers several practical takeaways for those bringing or defending claims:

Build the Evidence of Harm: Claimants should robustly evidence the impact of the privacy breach. This includes:

Witness statements detailing distress, embarrassment, anxiety, and any lifestyle effects.

Medical evidence if there’s any psychological or physical manifestation (therapy records, a psychologist’s report diagnosing PTSD or depression, etc., as seen in FGX and AXB).

Tangible fallout: e.g. did the claimant lose friends, job opportunities, suffer health setbacks? In Sir Cliff’s case, evidence of his emotional turmoil and public reaction was key. In Sicri, proof of stress-related illness and job loss helped justify a high award.

Financial loss documentation: if claiming special damages, have receipts or expert assessments (like AXB’s calculation of lost earnings, or FGX’s therapy bills).

Remember, privacy damages are not calculated by a formula; they’re a matter of judicial impression. The richer and more concrete the evidence of harm, the more confident a court will be in awarding a higher sum. As noted by judges, claimants who provide cogent evidence of their suffering often see that reflected in the award.

Plead Aggravation and Look at Defendant’s Conduct.If there are aspects of the defendant’s behaviour that aggravated the hurt (malicious intent, insensitive handling, refusal to apologise, dragging the claimant harshly through litigation), highlight these. Courts can and do uplift for aggravation. For example, point out if the defendant doubled down, like BBC’s award entry, or a council’s hostile trial conduct in Bekoe. Conversely, as a defendant, if you handle the aftermath responsibly immediate apology, quick removal of content, you might mitigate aggravated damages.

Consider Parallel Claims, but No Double Recovery.Often privacy claims come with data protection claims or breach of confidence. It’s wise to plead them in the alternative (in case one route fails). However, understand you won’t get separate pots of money for each,the court will give one blended award. Still, multiple causes can offer multiple avenues to liability.

Don’t Underestimate Small Breaches.As seen in JQL, even a short Facebook post can yield £15k if the content is sensitive. So claimants, do pursue claims if the privacy interest is strong, even if the leak was brief or local.

Mitigation Matters: From a defendant perspective, actions to mitigate harm can influence damages. For example, taking down an article promptly, or issuing a private apology (even if not public), could be raised to show the court that the impact was lessened. While not a defence, it might prevent an aggravated uplift. Claimants, on the other hand, should mitigate where reasonable (e.g., seek removal of content) because if you unreasonably fail to, the defendant might argue the extended harm was avoidable. That said, mitigation in privacy has its limits – you can’t un-ring a bell, but you can stop further ringing.

Have you suffered distress or reputational damage due to a breach of your privacy? We understand the serious emotional and professional consequences that can result from wrongful disclosures. Carruthers Law provides strategic, discreet and expert representation in all privacy matters, from injunctions to damages claims.