Court of Appeal Refines Boundaries in GDPR Claims

The Court of Appeal’s 2025 ruling in Farley & Paymaster (trading as Equiniti) brings significant clarity (and some surprises) to non-material data protection claims under GDPR:

1. No Minimum Threshold for Non-Material Damage: In line with EU precedent, the Court confirmed that emotional distress (even modest) can be compensable under UK GDPR. There's no "seriousness threshold" requiring a high standard to claim non-material damage. Yet, this isn't a free pass: the distress must be objectively well-founded, not speculative or hypothetical. This is important because low-value claims may now survive early-stage challenge. But each claimant still must show a rational basis, not abstract risk.

2. Disclosure Not Needed to Establish a Breach: The Court removed the requirement that personal data must actually have been viewed by someone else for a GDPR infringement. A misposting (like the misplaced ABS envelopes in this case) alone suffices. So defences relying on “no one saw it, so no harm” no longer hold. Misprocessing alone can trigger liability, especially if perceived harm is credible.

3. “Well-Founded Fear” Is a Fact-Sensitive Threshold: The judgment emphasises that fear of identity theft or misuse must be based on facts known at the time and not speculation. Courts will assess each case individually, typically at trial level. Defendants should proactively assess whether a claimant’s fear is materially grounded or overblown, especially in pre-action or settlement discussions.

4. Abuse of Process Still Alive, but Narrowly Defined: The Court rejected class-based dismissal under abuse of process; however, weak individual claims could still be removed if the litigation yield is trivial and costs excessive. 

5. Post-Brexit Alignment with EU Law Matters: Despite Brexit, the Court decided not to diverge from CJEU GDPR jurisprudence, ensuring legal certainty, especially around emotional harm and threshold issues. 

Final Word

Farley v Equiniti isn’t a shift toward easy wins, but it marks a meaningful recalibration. Claimants no longer need dramatic harm to litigate, but they do need something grounded and real. For defenders, the emphasis now is on credibly contesting emotional harm and managing multiparty claims smartly and efficiently.

If you're facing (or anticipating) data protection claims, we at Atka can help you:

• Audit your mail/data workflows

• Evaluate claim viability critically

• Structure efficient litigation or settlement strategies