3/6/23, 9:54 AM FGX v Gaunt [2023] EWHC 419 (KB) (27 February 2023) 35. 10. The Defendant's conduct has had a serious impact on the Claimant's private life and lifestyle. She has lost trust in people and become reclusive, to the extent of changing her job and refraining from personal relationships. General damages 36. Counsel could not identify a case directly on point to provide assistance in determining a suitable monetary award for general damages. I propose therefore to set out the relevant guidance and case law to which Counsel directed me, before drawing the strands together. 37. Counsel's starting point is the awards for psychiatric and psychological damage to victims of sexual/physical abuse in Section C of Chapter 4 of the Judicial College Guidelines 2022 ('Psychiatric and Psychological Damage'). His rationale is that the impacts on the Claimant arising from the nature and duration of her PTSD as well as the effect on her ability to cope with life and work also feature as some of the impacts of sexual abuse (as listed in the guideline as relevant to assessing quantum). Counsel submitted that the appropriate sub-category is b) moderate ("Cases where the abuse is less serious and prolonged and there is a less severe psychological reaction with fewer effects on education, work, or relationships. …). The range of awards in this category is £20,570 - £45,000. 38. The only relevant authority on intentional infliction of harm which Counsel was able to identify is the case of ABC and WH v Willock [2015] EWHC 2687. The claimant, a 16-year-old pupil at a special needs school, claimed damages for sexual abuse inflicted by the Vice Principal of the school. Of relevance to the present case, the claimant was encouraged to send texts of a sexual content and indecent images of herself (topless; in her underwear; naked in the bath and pictures of her genitals). The Court awarded £25,000 (£31,790 in today's figures) emphasising the breach of trust given the age and vulnerability of the claimant. The claimant suffered an adjustment disorder (with increased anxiety, self harm, social difficulties with her peers and loss of self confidence) for six to ten months, of which 30% was identified as being due to the abuse. At trial she had an ongoing anxiety disorder which was expected to diminish over the following few years. Before me, Counsel submitted that the present case is more serious given the Claimant's diagnosis of chronic PTSD. 39. Turning to the information torts, Counsel explained that the only appellate authority considering quantum for obtaining and publishing private information he was able to identify is the case of MGN Limited v Representative Claimants [2015] EWCA Civ 1291. He submitted that the case provides some guidance, albeit the facts are very different, based as they are, on a claim for misuse of information arising out of phone hacking. The appropriate compensation will depend on the nature of the information; its significance as private information, and the effect on the victim of its disclosure. A short-lived effect based on embarrassment will attract less compensation than a life-changing intrusion. The effect of repeated intrusions by publication can be cumulative, though possibly the cumulative effect will mean that additional distress is less rather than increased as a result of repeat disclosures. 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). The extent of the publication of the information is 'clearly relevant to the level of damages' (§31). There must be some reasonable relationship between damages for non-pecuniary loss in defamation and damages awarded in personal injury cases even though the factors to be taken into account are materially different and no exact correlation can be achieved (§61-62). 40. Counsel submitted that the case of Reid v Price [2020] EWHC 594 (QB) has a similar factual basis to the present case. The claimant and the defendant are both celebrities who were married to each other and subsequently divorced. Video recordings and/or photographs obtained by the defendant during the course of the relationship showed the claimant dressed as his cross-dressing alter-ego and engaged in sexual activity. The moving and still images were disclosed to a substantial number of people. Some were people who knew the claimant. Other disclosures were made on public occasions, to people who were strangers. In addition, the defendant used graphic terms to describe an intimate sexual act to a media publisher, with a view to publication, which led to publication of the description in an online article. A claim was brought https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/419.html&query=(defamation) 8/13