Case Two: K. Weston - and - Watford Community Housing Trust
Welcome to County Cases
In March 2020, a large housing association committed a data breach when mistakenly, personal data on 3000 tenants was attached to a standard email detailing impacts from the pandemic on residents. Working with a firm representing over 100 victims of the breach, County Cost chose to economically and efficiently select 16 cases to run for assessment which ultimately spearheaded the success of the recovery of costs for the remaining cases.
Case Two: K. Weston - and - Watford Community Housing Trust
〰️
Case Two: K. Weston - and - Watford Community Housing Trust 〰️
Case One: D. SMITH - and - NORFOLK COMMUNITY HEALTH & CARE NHS TRUST
With perseverance and acute critical thinking, the County Cost team recovered costs for the multiple individuals due to the successful execution of their detailed arguments in relation to cost laws surrounding data breach cases.
Case Context:
Original Case: Data breach from a housing association of 3000 tenants personal information circulated via email with client involved representing over 100 victims involved
Cost Law Case: The defendant argued for case allocation, had it taken place, to be within the small claims track and for zero costs to be incurred as matters weren’t litigated
Case Duration: 3 years
County Cost Strategy: County Cost successfully won 16 cases, ultimately creating a catch all agreement on the 80 cases they were instructed to recover damages for
Amount Recovered: £1250-2500 per claimant
-
The primary argument from the defendants in this particular case, centred around CPR 46.133 detailing that, despite the acceptance of a part 36 offer, costs should be limited to small claims. As had the costs been assessed, this is the track allocation they would have been designated to. The defendants were relying on this practice relating to 8.2, in the hope that the case would fall under the small claims umbrella; limiting costs to under the £10,000 threshold and due to the belief that no personal injury was inflicted upon claimants.
The part 36 offers clients accepted ranged between damages of £1250-2500 per claimant, leading our clients to conclude that they should be rightfully entitled to costs. As the case progressed, it was becoming more apparent that it was financially unstable to run each of the 80 cases that were drafted. After correspondence with the defendants, it was agreed that 16 test cases would be chosen and run to assessment.
The 16 agreed cases ran in varying courts across the country, originally running them to provisional, with all ending in success. There was only one, in Manchester, that was initially unsuccessful however after being orally reviewed, the outcome followed suit with the other 15. Three were appealed by defendants but because of the collective success of the group, a catch all agreement was created for all 80 cases. -
This particular area of law can be very complex and usually resides under the small claims track. Usually there is no claim towards personal injury, however, in this individual case, our clients collated detailed information from the original litigation. Diligently, they requested medical record access and witness statements supporting the notion that pre existing psychological conditions had been exacerbated due to the ramifications of the data breach. Therefore, we at County, were able to formulate the argument that had matters not been settled as promptly, there may have been a potential personal injury element satisfying its corresponding threshold.
-
County’s team has been at the forefront of arguments in relation to 46.133 of CPR. At the time of this case, there were no other existing decisions to compare to regarding the personal injury element. However, County had been successful with two earlier cases in 2021 which assisted and fortified the arguments supporting this case.
Having run similar cases in the Liverpool court with two successful appeals, we were aware that the defendants arguments were against the prior appeals we had experienced, narrowing the chances of the defendant’s claims to win.As a team, we collated detailed bundles, skeleton arguments and evidence to ensure that we were fully prepared for all angles and disagreements.
We chose to run the 16 cases in various courts across the country, which turned out to be a time efficient decision as dates were quicker to come by and ultimately, assisted with the overall cost of the case.
-
From the outset of proceedings, we interacted with our client with pure transparency and honesty in terms of finances. Running 80 cases was always going to be a costly endeavour, due to the time it would take combined with facing robust arguments from the opposition. We were under no illusion that this would be a short case and factored this into our plan of action. By being candid with our clients, we were able to strategise and work in the most efficient manner whilst also securing a win.
We utilised our extensive knowledge with prior data breach cases and our personal experience with the court’s decisions to build a foolproof argument, garnering a healthy amount of profit for the individuals involved.
