KB-2022-003316 - [2025] EWHC 1716 (KB)

It is important to set out the principal issues to be resolved in this litigation as they arise from the statements of case. The statements of case follow the same structure and, ignoring factual matters specific to the individual Claimants, raise largely the same issues.

Core allegations made by the Claimants

The claims are based on the tort of misuse of private information and, in one case, breach of confidence.

The claims rely principally upon alleged unlawful information gathering (“UIG”) by individuals acting on behalf of the Defendant (“Associated”). The pleaded types of alleged UIG are (i) phone hacking; (ii) phone tapping; (iii) blagging information; (iv) burglary to order; and (v) the commissioning of third-party investigators (including search agencies and private investigators) (“TPIs”) to commit acts of UIG.

The core allegations in the POC fall into three categories:

Category (1) consists of specific acts of wrongdoing alleged to amount to misuse of private information by each Claimant. Categories (2) (referred to by the parties as the “similar fact” case) and (3) (referred to as the “generic case”) are pleaded as providing evidential support for the wrongdoing alleged in Category (1).

Category (2) sets out the key “similar fact” evidence relied upon by the Claimants to establish a modus operandi of the TPIs relied upon. Schedule C to the Particulars of Claim contains specific examples. With some exceptions, the matters relied upon in Schedule C focus on the activities of the TPIs. Although a few Pleaded Journalists are named in Schedule C, they are not its focus.

Category (3) – the generic case – is exceptionally broad. It is advanced, in the Particulars of Claim in each of the claims, in the following terms:

“8.

The Claimant will contend that the use of these Unlawful Acts was both habitual and widespread across Associated’s newspapers during the period at least 1993 onwards to 2011 and even continued beyond until 2018. In support of this contention, pending full and proper disclosure of all relevant documents being provided and/or responses to requests for further information being given, the Claimant will rely upon the following facts and matters (which are further detailed in paragraphs 9 to 14 below):

a.

The very large number of different private investigators who were instructed or commissioned by Associated to obtain information through unlawful or illegal means, as they were by other tabloid newspaper groups such as News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (and in respect of which their activities have been admitted or demonstrated to have been unlawful or illegal).

b.

The considerable number of different journalists, as well as desks or departments, within the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday who commissioned these private investigators, some of whom came to work at these newspaper titles following their employment at other newspapers where these same unlawful activities were also heavily used such as the Daily Mirror, the SundayMirror, The People, The Sun and the News of the World, including by these same journalists.

c.

The substantial amounts of money paid by Associated to these private investigators for carrying out such services, and the fact that these amounts were known to and approved by executives at Associated’s newspapers.

d.

The fact that the activities of these private investigators were known or must have been known to be (or were obviously) unlawful or illegal, not least given the nature of the information requested and/or provided, and the manner in which it was obtained, as well as the amounts of money paid for it (ie. in excess of what the cost would be if the information was freely or lawfully available).

e.

The substantial number of victims (including the Claimant) who were targeted by Associated using these Unlawful Acts, including the publication of articles which exploited the information unlawfully or illegally obtained as a direct result in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday (as well as on MailOnline).

9.

Pending the provision of disclosure and/or further information, the Claimant will refer by way of example to the instruction or commissioning by Associated of the following private investigators (and some of their corporate identities) and the Unlawful Acts which they carried out for them during the period of at least 1993 onwards to 2011 and even continued beyond until 2018…”

Nineteen TPIs (some using aliases) have been identified by the Claimants (“the Pleaded TPIs”). They are alleged to have engaged in UIG and (in Paragraphs 10-11 of the Particulars of Claim) to have been instructed by identified Associated journalists and desk executives. In total, 82 different journalists/editors/executives are named in the Particulars of Claim as being potentially involved in UIG (“the Pleaded Journalists”).

The claims concern 53 different pleaded Schedule B Articles (i.e. articles relating to the Claimants themselves) and a further 17 pleaded Schedule C Articles, concerning additional individuals other than the Claimants (together “the Pleaded Articles”). 65 pleaded associates of the seven Claimants are also alleged to have been likely targets of UIG.

In Paragraph 15 of the Particulars of Claim, each Claimant contends:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant will rely upon the fact that these Unlawful Acts were habitually and widely carried out or commissioned by Associated and its journalists (as set out in paragraphs 9 to 14 above) in support of her case that the same Unlawful Acts were also carried out or commissioned against her … as part of the modus operandi of obtaining, preparing and publishing stories during this period. In the premises, the Claimant will contend that she was one of the victims of Associated’s widespread unlawful or illegal activities.”

It is a feature of the Particulars of Claim that each Claimant sought to reserve his/her position pending provision of disclosure and/or further information. This expansive style of pleading is generally undesirable because it injects uncertainty as to the parameters of a claimant’s case. In these claims, whilst it may have been defensible when the Particulars of Claim were originally drafted, each claim has now progressed beyond the stages of disclosure and further information. I will return to this point later in the judgment (see [274] below).

Associated’s Defence

Associated’s answer to each of the Claimant’s allegations – pleaded in its Defence to each claim – is straightforward. Associated denies all the allegations of unlawful activity in respect of each Claimant, including phone hacking, phone tapping, blagging, or commissioning private investigators to target them. Specifically, Associated denies in respect of each Claimant (a) that its journalists engaged in or commissioned unlawful acts; (b) using information obtained through illegal means; (c) misusing each Claimant’s private information; or (d) commissioning or paying the Pleaded TPIs. Associated does admit that, prior to April 2007, some journalists used search/enquiry agents to obtain contact details, but not for illegal purposes. Associated’s case is that use of private investigators ceased in 2007.

In relation to the Claimants’ similar fact and generic cases, Associated’s response is set out in the Defence as follows:

Associated also relied upon a defence of limitation – under s.2 Limitation Act 1980 – in answer to each Claimant’s claim.

The Replies

Each Claimant has served a Reply.

As to the substantive claim, each Claimant has:

In response to the limitation defence, each Claimant has alleged that Associated – through covert methods inherent in UIG, euphemistic language, misleading article sourcing, and document destruction – concealed facts relevant to his/her claim and has relied upon s.32 Limitation Act 1980 to defeat Associated’s limitation defence. Each Claimant has provided details of what has been called his/her “personal watershed moment” (“the Watershed Moment”); the point at which the Claimant realised that s/he had a claim worth pursuing against Associated in respect of the claim now pursued.

The Rejoinders

Associated has filed a Rejoinder in each claim in which it denies that the relevant Claimant can rely upon s.32 Limitation Act 1980. Associated has denied deliberate concealment of any matter from the relevant Claimant and complained that each Claimant had failed properly to identify the facts that were concealed. Alternatively, Associated contends that, prior to 6 October 2016 (being 6 years before the claims were commenced), each Claimant either had actual knowledge or, with reasonable diligence, could have discovered sufficient facts to render his/her claim worthwhile. The facts alleged in support of both actual and constructive knowledge relevant to each Claimant are set out in each Rejoinder.