Review of Damages for Media Torts
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
There should be a review of damages generally available for breach of data protection, privacy, breach of confidence or any other media-related torts, to ensure proportionate compensation including for non-pecuniary loss (all referable to the duration, extent and gravity of the contravention).
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:
- In Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291, the Court of Appeal upheld substantial damages awards for phone hacking victims, with individual awards ranging from £72,500 to £260,250, significantly increasing the baseline for privacy damages (Gulati v MGN Ltd, Court of Appeal, December 2015).
- No published evidence that the formal review of damages generally available for media-related torts recommended by Lord Justice Leveson was conducted by the government or judiciary has been identified to March 2026.
How was this evidence gathered?
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
Court awards for privacy and data protection breaches have increased through case law since Leveson (notably Gulati v MGN 2015). However, the formal review of damages that Leveson recommended was not conducted. No specific government response was given to this recommendation. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-cameron-statement-in-response-to-the-leveson-inquiry-report
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 27 Feb 2025 · Government Court awards for privacy and data protection breaches have increased significantly since Leveson. The Gulati v MGN case (2015) established that substantial damages are available for phone hacking. Prince Harry's settlement with News UK (January 2025) reportedly exceeded £10m. However there has been no formal review of damages as Leveson recommended. View source → Reasonable Progress
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.