Compensation for Distress
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
It should be made clear that the right to compensation for distress conferred by section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 is not restricted to cases of pecuniary loss, but should include compensation for pure distress.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:
- Section 168(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 explicitly provides that "in Article 82 of the UK GDPR... 'non-material damage' includes distress", confirming that compensation for pure distress is available without requiring pecuniary loss (Data Protection Act 2018, Section 168, legislation.gov.uk).
- This directly implements the recommendation that the right to compensation should not be restricted to cases of pecuniary loss.
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
The Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 168) provides for compensation for distress without requiring pecuniary loss, implementing this recommendation. Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/168
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 23 May 2018 · UK Parliament Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides for compensation for distress without requiring pecuniary loss. This implements Leveson's recommendation that compensation should include pure distress. View source → Confirmed Completed
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.