HM Courts and Tribunals Service

3. Mr B complains that HMCTS disclosed his personal data, including his name and case reference number, to a third party via email. Whilst HMCTS acknowledged the error and offered a financial remedy of £200 for the distress, Mr B does not feel this goes far enough to put things right. By bringing his complaint to our office, Mr B is seeking a higher sum of financial remedy.

4. On 29 May 2025, a HMCTS member of staff mistakenly emailed a copy of Mr B’s court order, which included his name and case reference number, to a third party. HMCTS asked the third party to delete the email and contacted Mr B to let him know what had happened.

6. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look to see if the organisation has done something wrong. If we find it has, we then look to see what impact this had and what action the organisation has taken to put things right. From the information we have seen, we are satisfied HMCTS has already taken sufficient action to put things right for Mr B.

7. UK GDPR principles says anyone responsible for using personal data must make sure the information is handled in a way that ensures appropriate security. In line with this, HMCTS should not have shared Mr B’s personal data (name and case reference number) with a third party.

8. HMCTS explained this was a one-off error and apologised to Mr B for the impact this had on him. It explained the member of staff immediately took steps to rectify their mistake and has since completed refresher training on data security. In recognition of the distress caused, HMCTS paid Mr B a financial remedy of £200.

9. Our Principles for Remedy says when an organisation has got something wrong, it should take steps to put things right. These should be appropriate and proportionate to the injustice.

10. We can see HMCTS quickly acknowledged its error, explained how it happened and took steps to minimise the risk of it happening again. HMCTS also apologised for the distress caused to Mr B and paid him £200 in recognition of this.

11. We appreciate Mr B is seeking a higher sum of financial remedy. It is not our role to replace HMCTS’s offer with an alternative sum. We are satisfied the actions taken by HMCTS are reasonable, proportionate and in line with our Principles for Remedy. For this reason, we would not expect HMCTS to take any further action on Mr B’s complaint.

12. We understand Mr B may find our decision disappointing. We do not underestimate the seriousness of his concerns or the impact the situation had on his health and wellbeing. We can see this was a one-off incidence of maladministration and we are satisfied HMCTS has taken appropriate steps to put things right.

13. It is important we apply our current approach and process fairly and consistently. We are sorry for any upset this decision may cause. We hope this statement clearly explains the reasons why we will not be considering the complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr B’s complaint about HMCTS. We have decided HMCTS has already taken sufficient action to put things right for Mr B. We will take no further action on his complaint.

2. We thank Mr B for taking the time to tell us about his experience. We were sorry to hear about what happened, and the impact this had on him. We hope this statement explains the reasons for our decision.