High Court, in a claim for damages arising out of a personal data breach, upholds a determination of the Circuit Court that, while the plaintiff’s proceedings remain extant, the principal remedy sought by the plaintiff was damages for personal injury, and that aspect of the claim was bound to fail because of her failure to obtain prior authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board pursuant to statute.
Personal injuries - plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a census enumerator - Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s P45 to a third party – 3,000 data subjects affected by the disclosure - Plaintiff claims that the Defendant acted in breach of contract, was negligent and breached its duty of care – breach of privacy rights, right of confidence, and data protection rights – Plaintiff seeking damages for the stress and anxiety caused as a result of the data breach - psoriatic arthritis made worse by stress - appeal to the High Court from the Circuit Court - preliminary issue in Defence - Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries but the claim was not properly constituted because it had not been authorised by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board - the Plaintiff had not sought an authorisation from PIAB prior to the commencement of the proceedings - Circuit Court found that the principal remedy sought by the plaintiff was damages for personal injury - must fail because of her failure to obtain prior authorisation from PIAB – Section 12(1) application must be made to PIAB – without this step no proceedings may be brought in respect of a claim - the Supreme Court previously clarified that section 12(1) operates to bar a remedy - Court found that the only damage expressly identified by the Plaintiff was stress, anxiety, distress and worsening psoriatic arthritis - no other specific loss or damage referred to in the Civil Bill - the Plaintiff says that this cannot be a claim for personal injuries because the nature of the harm suffered by the Plaintiff does not amount to a recognisable psychiatric injury of the type that would attract an award of damages by reference to existing principles – the Court rejected that submission - the only damage pleaded in the proceedings are damages for “personal injuries” within the meaning of section 2 of the Act of 1961 – the Court found that the Plaintiff was required by the statute to make an application to PIAB for an assessment of her claims prior to commencing the proceedings - the preliminary objection raised by the Defendant must succeed.