The Circuit Court has stayed a man’s compensation claim against three courier companies over a 2021 data breach, pending rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on questions about compensation under data protection law.
Judge John O’Connor made the order on 23 January 2023 in proceedings brought by Gary Cunniam against Parcel Connect Limited, A&G Couriers Limited and Napier Couriers Limited, each trading as Fastway Couriers Ireland. The stay is to remain in place until the CJEU determines six preliminary references from other member states. The court did not decide whether the defendants were liable or whether Cunniam suffered damage.
Cunniam’s claim arose from a breach which he pleaded occurred between 24 and 26 February 2021. He says he was told by email that a third-party hacker had accessed his personal data. His claim alleges failures to protect that data and seeks compensation for non-material damage, including interference with his peace and privacy and concern about possible misuse. He confirmed in replies to the defendants’ questions that he was not claiming quantifiable material damage.
The defendants sought the stay under the Circuit Court’s inherent power to manage its proceedings. They argued that the CJEU references could clarify what counts as non-material damage under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), whether a controller may be liable following a hacking attack, and how compensation should be assessed. They also said continuing the case could generate legal costs far exceeding any likely award and that uncertainty made it difficult to make a lodgement to protect against costs.
Cunniam opposed an immediate stay. He argued the case could move through its pre-trial steps without conflicting with a CJEU ruling, and that a stay would delay his access to a hearing. He proposed considering a stay later, when the case was ready for trial, and suggested case management or a lead case for similar claims.
The judge said the Circuit Court had no automatic obligation to grant a stay, but had discretion to do so where exceptional reasons or special circumstances justified it. In this case, the court considered the CJEU references relevant, found that the prejudice Cunniam identified was delay, and accepted the defendants’ concerns about costs. It concluded that awaiting the CJEU decisions would best serve justice. The judge rejected the proposed lead-case approach as impractical across eight circuits and separate proceedings.
The order pauses these proceedings pending the six specified CJEU determinations. It does not resolve the underlying claim or award compensation.