A man who claims he suffered from distress, upset and anxiety arising from a financial services company’s disclosure of his personal data to a third party may bring a case for damages without Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) approval, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The court’s ruling clarifies that claims for damages for “emotional disturbances” which fall short of a recognised psychiatric disorder are not “personal injury” claims, as defined by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003.
Before his appeal to the Supreme Court, Patrick Dillon’s case seeking damages against Irish Life Assurance plc arising from a data breach was dismissed by the Circuit Court and High Court. The breach complained of occurred when Irish Life erroneously shared letters containing Mr Dillion’s personal and financial data with a third party.
Both the Circuit Court and High Court ruled Mr Dillon’s case sought damages for “personal injury”, and in circumstances where Mr Dillion did not obtain PIAB authorisation before bringing the proceedings, the case should be dismissed as being frivolous, vexatious or bound to fail.
READ MORE
Under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, a party proposing to bring a case seeking damages for “personal injury” must obtain authorisation from the PIAB.
Mr Dillon’s appeal to the Supreme Court was rooted in the question of whether a claim for damages for distress, upset and anxiety falls under the definition of “personal injury” in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003.
The Act defines personal injury as including “any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition”.
In a judgment on Thursday, Mr Justice Brian Murray, on behalf of a five-judge Supreme Court panel, ruled that claims for damages for “emotional disturbances” like distress, upset, anxiety and inconvenience which fall short of a recognised psychiatric disorder – like Mr Dillon’s – is not a personal injury claim, as defined by the Act.
As such, the judge found the Circuit Court and High Court were wrong to dismiss Mr Dillon’s case on the basis that he had not obtained PIAB authorisation.
[ Woman who left scene after knocking down pedestrian who then died avoids jailOpens in new window ]
The judge noted that Mr Dillon’s case is for non-material damage under the Data Protection Act 2018. This Act allows for judicial remedy, including compensation, for infringement of a data subject’s rights.
Mr Justice Murray noted that those who bring claims solely for mental distress, anxiety and upset – which do not require PIAB authorisation – “cannot expect anything other than very, very modest awards”.
The judge said it would be possible for a plaintiff to bring a case alleging a breach of their rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 that gives rise to a medically recognised psychiatric injury. In those circumstances, PIAB authorisation would be required to bring the case.
