YSL v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
[2024] EWHC 391 (KB)
Andrew Prismall v Google UK Limited & Anor
19 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1169 (KB)
High Court
A big lawsuit against Google and DeepMind for sharing medical information was thrown out of court. The judge said that even if only the smallest amount of harm was considered, not everyone involved could prove their privacy was violated enough to win. The lawsuit was too broad and couldn't prove everyone was harmed.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Prismall brought a representative claim for misuse of private information (MOPI) against Google UK Limited and DeepMind Technologies Limited on behalf of approximately 1.6 million individuals.
- •The claim arose from the transfer of patient-identifiable medical records from the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust to DeepMind in 2015.
- •The claim concerned the obtaining, storing, and use of patient data before the Streams app became operational in 2017.
- •The claim sought loss of control damages only, calculated using a 'lowest common denominator' approach.
- •The defendants applied to strike out the claim or grant summary judgment.
- •LCM Funding UK Limited acted as litigation funder for the Representative Claimant.
Legal Principles
Strike out and summary judgment standards
CPR 3.4(2)(a), CPR 24.2, Begum v Maran (UK) Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 326
Two-stage test for MOPI: reasonable expectation of privacy and balancing exercise
McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5
De minimis threshold for MOPI
Ambrosiadou v Coward [2011] EWCA Civ 409, Bloomberg
Importance of Article 8 right to respect for private life in medical context
Z v Finland (1998) 25 EHRR 371
Representative actions under CPR 19.8
CPR 19.8, Lloyd v Google LLC [2022] AC 1217
Damages for loss of control in MOPI
Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482, Lloyd
Outcomes
Claim struck out and summary judgment granted for the defendants.
The claimant lacked a realistic prospect of establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy or unlawful interference for every class member, even using a 'lowest common denominator' approach. The claim for loss of control damages was also deemed unsustainable.