3/6/23, 9:54 AM FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) (27 February 2023) 47. None of the cases on misuse of information cited to me concern publication on a pornographic website. I consider the consequent degradation and humiliation for the Claimant considerably heightens the violation of her personal dignity and autonomy resulting from the misuse of her information. 48. I bear in mind the need to maintain a reasonable relationship between awards for misuse of information and personal injury (MGN at §61-62). 49. I accept Counsel's submission that the impacts on the Claimant are akin to the impacts of sexual assault listed in the Judicial College guidelines, albeit that the abuse in the present case is image based rather than physical. I note in this context that voyeurism is treated as a sexual offence. I take into account the Judicial College awards for psychiatric and psychological damage consequent on sexual abuse, which range from £20,570- £45,000. 50. So far as this particular Claimant is concerned, the impacts of the abuse have manifested themselves in a diagnosis of chronic PTSD with an enduring personality change and consequent impact on her private life and lifestyle. Her diagnosis is supported by medical evidence. I treat the PTSD as her primary injury. The Claimant has become reclusive, to the extent of changing her job so she can work from home and refraining from personal relationships. 51. The medical opinion explains that the Claimant is one of a minority of people for whom the PTSD becomes chronic. In this context I remind myself that, in the context of misuse of information, the Courts have made clear that the extent of the damage may be claimant-specific: those with a thin skin may be caused more distress (and receive more compensation) than those with a thick skin (§32 MGN). 52. The Judicial College awards for PTSD reserve category a) (severe) for permanent effects which prevent the injured person from working at all or at least from functioning at anything approaching the pre trauma level. Category b) (moderately severe) "is considered distinct from the severe category because of the better prognosis which will be for some recovery with professional help. However, the effects are still likely to cause significant disability for the foreseeable future." Awards range from £59,860 - £100,670 for severe and £23,150 to £59,860 for moderately severe, as to which the majority of awards are said to be between £28,760 - £37,120. 53. Whilst there are permanent effects on the Claimant (enduring personality change), she is able to work and there is evidence of some improvement (e.g. decreasing frequency of headaches) so I consider category b (moderately severe) to be the appropriate category. I put her case towards the top end of the category given the enduring personality change. 54. I have considered the caselaw on PTSD awards in Kemp and Kemp Quantum of Damages. I have found some assistance from Re TP (Vol 3 C2-002) which concerns a diagnosis of chronic PTSD with an enduring personality change after rape. The claimant in that case had retrained so as to be able to work at home. The PTSD had lasted 27 years; had led to the claimant not having children; being unable to travel by public transport and eventually being unable to work at all. In today's figures, the Court awarded £93,000 for pain suffering and loss of amenity. I consider the impacts on the Claimant in the present case are not as severe as in Re TP. 55. The Claimant also has a diagnosis of a relapse of a mixed anxiety/depressive disorder, as to which, 50% is considered attributable to the events in question. The Consultant psychiatrist observes that depression and anxiety are common features of PTSD so I do not make a separate award in order to avoid double counting. 56. The case of ABC v Willock is the only case before me on quantum for the intentional infliction of injury, by way of sexual texting and the sending of indecent images (£31,970 on today's figures). The breach of trust in Willock may be said to be more serious (a highly vulnerable 16-year-old and a perpetrator 39 years her senior and a senior member of the school). However, the psychological impact is more severe in the present case. In addition, the misuse of information in the present case is considerably more serious. The https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/419.html&query=(defamation) 10/13