The Supreme Court varied the High Court costs order against Peter Murphy, making him liable for 70% of those costs after he succeeded on an important legal issue but failed to obtain the remedy he sought. The court made no order for costs in the appeal.
The ruling, delivered on 29 July 2021, concerned costs following an appeal decided in November 2018. Murphy’s original proceedings had been dismissed by the High Court at the end of his evidence. He claimed damages for injurious falsehood, negligence, breach of duty and breach of constitutional rights over information he said was incorrectly recorded about motoring and other offences.
Murphy said the release of that information led to the cancellation of a motor insurance policy after an alleged false answer on his proposal form. His claim relied in part on the Data Protection Act 1988, as amended.
The Supreme Court had held that section 7 of the 1988 Act preserved a judicial remedy for breach of a data controller’s duty of care, and that the trial judge was wrong to conclude that a damages claim could not succeed on that legal basis. But the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge’s primary determination that Murphy had not established a prima facie case in negligence, breach of duty or injurious falsehood. The proceedings were not reinstated.
In seeking a different costs outcome, Murphy argued that documents produced during the High Court hearing showed that records attributed to him related to another person with the same name. He said he had vindicated his good name and asked the court to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event. He also cited his constitutional right to litigate, equality of arms, the public importance of data accuracy and his financial circumstances. The court noted that his finances could be considered but were not decisive. The respondents did not seek an order awarding them the appeal costs.
The court said the relevant event for costs was obtaining some or all of the remedies claimed. Murphy had succeeded on a legal point but had not secured a remedy or reversed the outcome of the proceedings. In recognition of his success on that point, the court reduced his liability for the High Court costs to 70%. It said an award of costs to Murphy was not justified; as he represented himself, any entitlement would be limited to modest expenses he had incurred.