3/6/23, 9:54 AM FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) (27 February 2023) for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and breach of contract, and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998. The judge considered that the claim merited an award 'of at least £25,000'. There was no medical evidence of harm with the result that the judge was not prepared to make an award for psychiatric harm, but he accepted that the claimant found publication demeaning and suffered a loss of personal dignity and harm to self-esteem. Before me, Counsel submitted that the award of £25,000 should be treated as a floor not a ceiling. The defendant in Reid was bankrupt and the claim form sought damages limited to £25,000. Permission to amend the claim form was not sought on the basis the fee for doing so was unlikely to be recovered, given the Defendant's financial position. 41. The final case relied on by Counsel is the case of Bell v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1650 (QB), a claim for misuse of private information and copyright infringement. The claimant and his then wife won a considerable sum in the National Lottery. Having separated from his wife he met the defendant, and they began a relationship which subsequently broke down, which the defendant then wrote about in a book, including details of their sexual relationship. The Court awarded £10,000 for misuse of private information. The Court noted the considerable distress caused to the claimant and the nature of the information. Conversely, however, publication of the information had been limited. Before me, Counsel submitted that the case is less serious than the present case because there were no images involved (only a description of sexual activity) and publication was limited (100 copies of a book). Analysis 42. I am asked to assess quantum on the basis of separate and distinctive torts – the intentional infliction of injury and the misuse of private information (Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC §45 – 46). The facts underlying the causes of action overlap to a considerable degree and I must avoid double counting in any award of damages. The factors to be taken into account in assessing quantum are materially different for the torts but I must, nonetheless, seek to maintain a reasonable relationship between the two, even though no exact correlation can be achieved (MGN §61-62). 43. Applying the guidance in MGN, I treat the naked images of the Claimant as private information of significance. Unlike the judge in MGN, I have limited information as to the extent of publication. On the evidence available to me, I proceed on the basis that the images remain online, available to an unknown number of recipients. The likelihood that they have been replicated is high and it would be rare for there to be less than 20 images available to view. Once downloaded, the images will remain available for viewing even if the Claimant utilises the services of a content removal company as she proposes to do. On this basis I draw an analogy with the principle in MGN that the effect of repeated intrusions by publication can be cumulative. In the Claimant's case, the effect has contributed to the development of chronic PTSD and an enduring personality change. I treat the impact on her as profound. 44. Counsel did not suggest that that awards in MGN were comparable and I was not directed to the quantum of specific awards in the case. Accordingly, I do not proceed by way of analogy with the awards in that case. It may be said, however, that the misuse of information in the present case is equally as serious, if not more so, than accessing voicemails to obtain private information for publication in newspapers. 45. The case of Reid v Price has a factually similar basis to the present case in that it involved covert recording of intimate matters within the confines of a romantic personal relationship. I treat the award of £25,000 as a floor not a ceiling (for the reasons explained at §40 above). The figure of £25,000 does not include an award for a medical diagnosis of psychological harm, which is a feature of the present case. The claimant in Reid had to endure a degree of public interest not present here because he and the defendant were public figures. Conversely, however, the Claimant in the present case has not sought to put herself into public life in any way. Her diagnosis of chronic PTSD is based, in part, on her continuing pre-occupation with the images being available to the public. 46. I consider the case of Bull v Desporte to be a less serious case than the present case. The information in question was a written account of sexual activity. There were no images of a sexual nature and distribution was restricted to 100 copies of a book. https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/419.html&query=(defamation) 9/13