Claire Stephenson v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (t/a Equitini)
Citation not recorded · Court not recorded · 2023
Summary
A costs assessment dispute following a settled data protection and misuse of private information claim. The claimant settled for 2000 but sought recovery of her After the Event (ATE) insurance premium under a statutory exception for misuse of private information. The court held that the MPI claim was spurious, added nothing to the core data protection breach, and was artificially 'tacked on' for costs benefits, meaning the premium was irrecoverable.
Key attributes
- Claimant type
- Individual
- Defendant type
- Business
- Sector
- Pensions and Financial Services Administration
- Platform
- Postal Mail
- Serious financial loss
- Not considered
- Causation finding
- The court determined that there was no tangible harm or misuse of the information because the recipient did not use the data, and the defendant's accidental mailing did not constitute an intentional 'use' of private info. The MPI claim was found to be spurious and added nothing to the data protection claim.
- Claimed loss
- Not recorded
- Accepted loss
- Not recorded
- Total damages
- £2,000
- Turnover band
- Not recorded
- Outcome
- The court ruled that the After the Event (ATE) insurance premium claimed by the claimant was not recoverable because the MPI claim was spurious, leaving the claimant with the settled sum of 2000 from the prior Part 36 agreement.
- Appeal status
- First instance
Why it matters
This case is a key authority on costs in data breach litigation, clarifying that claimants cannot obtain tactical costs advantages (such as recovering ATE premiums) by simply labeling a simple, inadvertent data breach as a 'misuse of private information' claim when the facts do not support the tort's elements.
What this record does not tell you
- Any field shown as “not recorded” is genuinely absent from the record, not estimated.
- A damages award is not a measure of the claimant's commercial loss and is never used as one.
- Outcomes turn on their own facts; similarity to your situation is a matter for a solicitor.
Judgment metadata is derived from public sources. Analysis is Defametrics' own and is not legal advice.