We are proud to share news of a landmark victory achieved by our Litigation & Personal Injury (LPI) team this morning in the Supreme Court, the highest court in the State. The decision in Patrick Dillon v. Irish Life Assurance Plc [2025] IESC 37 represents not only a substantial legal milestone but also a moment of deep professional pride for all involved at Gibson & Associates LLP.
Background & Legal Context
This matter arose from a series of six data breaches committed by Irish Life Assurance Plc over a 12-year period (2008–2020), which caused our client, Mr Patrick Dillon, to suffer distress, upset, anxiety and inconvenience. Critically, these emotional impacts did not amount to a recognised psychiatric disorder.
Despite the absence of psychiatric injury, Mr Dillon sought compensation under Irish law for non-material damage. The claim was pursued under a no win, no fee arrangement, reflecting the firm’s confidence in its merit and wider legal significance.
Judge O’Connor in the Circuit Court dismissed the case as frivolous, vexatious, or bound to fail, holding that the plaintiff had effectively brought personal injuries claim without first going through the PIAB process. On appeal, Judge O’Donnell in the High Court upheld the Circuit Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff leave to appeal, recognising that the issues raised were matters of public importance and in the public interest.
However, we believed firmly that this was not a personal injuries claim, but rather a standalone data protection case under section 117 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Supreme Court Findings & Legal Significance
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position:
- Distress, upset, and anxiety, where they do not amount to recognised psychiatric injury, do not constitute personal injuries under the PIAB Act.
- Such claims fall outside the remit of the PIAB and do not require its prior authorisation.
- Section 117 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides a distinct and valid legal basis for compensation for non-material damage following a breach of GDPR.
This judgment represents a significant clarification of the law, confirming that emotional distress alone — where no psychiatric disorder is alleged — can ground a claim for damages under Irish data protection legislation.
Emotional Distress Is Not a Personal Injury
Murray J. emphasised that the courts have repeatedly held that damages for worry and stress alone, not giving rise to psychiatric injury, are not recoverable in tort actions.
He further explained:
- Damages for emotional or mental distress can be recovered in certain other actionable wrongs.
- These are, however, consequent on proven and recognised damage, or arise in contexts where the protection of the plaintiff was envisaged (for example, as part of a contract).
- The purpose of compensatory damages is to compensate for the effects of a wrongful act, but this does not convert emotional distress into a personal injury.
Murray J. noted that Irish Life’s position would effectively mean that any case seeking damages for mental distress – including “holiday disappointment” cases – would have to go through the PIAB system, an outcome he rejected.
The Strategic Journey
This case, ongoing since 2020, required exceptional perseverance. It involved:
- Managing tight and recurring deadlines.
- Delivering highly technical court books and extensive legal submissions under extreme pressure.
- Coordinating between courts, counsel, and our in-house teams to bring the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Our client, understandably, faced moments of uncertainty — particularly given the personal risk of costs exposure. Through clear and honest communication, mutual respect, and strategic legal guidance, we maintained a strong working relationship that allowed us to see the matter through to its ultimate success.
A Team Effort Across the Firm
This result is the product of firm-wide collaboration and stands as a testament to the dedication, talent, and resilience of our team.
A particular thank you is due to the LPI team, who brought deep technical insight and tireless effort to each stage of this litigation. Their contribution reflects the very best of what we strive to deliver for our clients: strategic clarity, legal excellence, and client-focused advocacy.
Final Reflections
“This case not only marks a personal and professional achievement for everyone involved but also sets a significant legal precedent. It confirms that individuals suffering emotional harm from data breaches — even where it does not amount to a psychiatric disorder — have a valid path to legal remedy without the need to initiate a PIAB process.”
— Amanda Walsh, Partner
This is a result that matters—not just for our client, but for individuals across the country whose data rights deserve robust protection.
We remain committed to representing our clients, championing their rights, and delivering results that reflect both legal precision and personal commitment.
Contact Our Personal Injury team & fill in the form.
