High Court Examines Stay of Civil Proceedings & Personal Data Classification in Cyber-Attack Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 157 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Stuart Sutton & Ors v Currys Group Limited [2024] EWHC 157 (KB), the High Court provides an insightful examination of several legal principles, particularly those related to the stay of civil proceedings and the classification of credit card data as personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). This article analyzes the key topics discussed and elucidates the legal principles applied by Deputy Judge Susie Alegre, linking them directly to the relevant parts of the provided case summary.

Key Facts

The case involves 711 claimants seeking distress damages from Currys Group Limited (CGL) for a breach of DPP7 under the DPA 1998, stemming from a cyber-attack that compromised customer data. Currys informed the ICO, resulting in a monetary penalty which is under appeal in the Upper Tribunal. Currys applied for a stay of civil proceedings pending the regulatory proceedings, or at least until the UT Appeal is concluded. The UT Appeal is particularly concerned with whether the accessed credit card data is “personal data.”

The decision applied several legal principles, to which we directly link relevant portions of the summary:

Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1 and CPR 3.1(2)(f))

  • The court must enable case handling justly and at proportionate cost, considering expense, proportionality, complexity, financial positions of parties, expeditious and fair treatment, and proper allocation of court resources.

Stay of Proceedings (CPR 3.1(2)(f))

  • The court may pause proceedings until a specified event, guided by cases such as Ticketmaster v Information Commissioner [2021] and Revenue and Customs Commissioners v RBS Deutschland Holdings GmbH [2007] which emphasize the material assistance a decision in another court can offer to the existing proceedings.

Interests of Justice and Access to Justice (Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022])

  • Stays are exceptional and require powerful reasons; the court’s usual function is to decide cases unless the interests of justice dictate a stay.

Separation of Proceedings (AB (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013])

  • No party can demand priority in hearing; the court manages timing based on justice delivery, avoiding pointless proceedings in anticipation of significant future events.

Costs and Successful Parties (CPR 44.2(2)(a) and cases like Fox v Foundation Piling Ltd [2011])

  • The general rule is that an unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful one, but the specifics can depend on the nature of successes and failures relating to the issues at hand.

Outcomes

Based on the principles cited, the Deputy Judge concluded that a stay was justified until the outcome of the UT Appeal. It was deemed relevant to the civil proceedings as it might significantly impact potential settlement and damages quantum. Furthermore, it would help avoid unnecessary costs and conserve court resources. The decision favored the defendants regarding the costs of the stay application. Additionally, the claimants were ordered to bear the costs of a substitution application due to their error in misnaming the defendant party.

Conclusion

The decision in Stuart Sutton & Ors v Currys Group Limited underscores the importance of using a stay of proceedings sparingly but acknowledges the potential benefits in specific circumstances. The case reaffirms the principle that the court’s intent is to adjudicate cases except where the interests of justice warrant a deviation. The expeditious administration of justice may not only rely on the quick resolution of litigation but also on the potential for pre-trial settlement facilitated by the results of related proceedings. This case illustrates the careful balancing act courts must perform, considering cost proportionality, the complexity of cases, and efficient allocation of judicial resources.