UK: The Morrisons Data Breach Judgment

Last Updated: 8 January 2018
Article by Nicolai Behr

Various Claimants v Wm Morrisons Supermarket PLC is an important decision about how and when an employer can be liable to its employees for data protection law breaches caused by a rogue employee. The judgment is mammoth and has received a lot of press attention. We have distilled the case and its implications into five key points:

  1. Group Litigation: This is one of the first class-action type claims for data protection law breaches in the UK. The rogue employees' actions impacted almost 100,000 employees, and 5,518 joined together under a 'group litigation order' to bring this claim. Whilst it might be one of the first, it won't be the last. Data breaches are business as usual, and the forthcoming GDPR will raise awareness of data protection rights to another level.
  2. Vicarious liability but not primary liability: Morrisons were held vicariously liable for the criminal actions of its rogue employee, who released payroll related data of almost 100k employees. This is perhaps unsurprising given the Supreme Court's decision in Mohamud v Morrisons, and the approach to assessing the connection between the rogue employee's employment and his wrongful conduct. The Court did acknowledge that this is a difficult issue, and gave leave to appeal. Importantly though, other than breach of the seventh data protection principle (see below) Morrisons did not have primary liability for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) or breach of confidence – that would only be the case if they authorised or permitted the misconduct.
  3. Appropriate technical and organisational security measures including retention: The employees claimed Morrisons were liable for breaches of several of the DPA's principles. The only principle they were found to have breached was the seventh principle – the requirement to ensure appropriate technical and organisation security measures to protect the data. Retention of the data, and a lack of clear procedure to address data deletion in this case, was a significant issue and Morrisons should have addressed it. On the facts, however, it was found not to have caused the unauthorised disclosure.
  4. Damages: This decision dealt with liability only so remedy awaits to another day. But importantly it does not matter if any of the impacted employees have suffered financial loss as a result of the breach. They can be awarded damages for the distress caused by the breach, and the loss of control over their personal data.
  5. Litigation strategy for data breach: If your business is subject to a data breach that results in a notification to Information Commissioner's Office (the ICO), the police, some other authority or regulator, and/or data subjects, you will need to be strategic in how you address your obligations towards those people, whilst protecting your position in the event of litigation by the data subjects themselves. It highlights the needs for a well rehearsed data security breach incident response plan. Morrisons brought a successful claim for damages against the rogue employee – but their evidence in that claim (including the potential distress caused to the affected employees by the breach) is likely to raise its head in the remedies hearing in this current claim.

Take a deeper dive into each of the five points below, but first, here are some of the facts giving rise to the judgment (because they're relevant, and quite interesting):


The rogue employee was Andrew Skelton, a Senior IT Auditor at Morrisons. In 2013, he had received a verbal warning for a matter unrelated to the present case. Skelton did not agree with the level of sanction he received and resolved to damage Morrisons. In November 2013, KPMG were carrying out an audit of Morrisons payroll data. Skelton did not normally have access to payroll data, which was limited to a handful of "super-users" and ordinarily stored on a secure internal environment created by proprietary software known as "Peoplesoft". However, to facilitate KPMG's work, the IT internal audit team was charged with responsibility for collating all the data requested by KPMG, which was assigned to Skelton. Accordingly, the payroll data was therefore extracted from Peoplesoft and transferred to Skelton's laptop via a USB drive. Skelton provided KPMG with the information they had requested, but retained a copy.

On 12 January 2014, a file containing personal details of nearly 100,000 Morrisons employees was posted on a file sharing website. Shortly afterwards, links to the website were placed elsewhere on the web. The data consisted of personal data (e.g. names, addresses, dates of birth, salaries, bank details etc.). On 13 March 2014, a CD containing a copy of the data was received by various newspapers in the UK. The newspapers did not publish the data and Morrisons was informed of the data breach. Within a few hours Morrisons had taken steps to ensure the website had been taken down. It also alerted the police.

On 19 March 2014, Skelton was arrested. He was later sentenced to 8 years in prison for offences arising from disclosing Morrisons' employees' personal data. At Skelton's criminal trial, the Recorder of Bradford had no doubt that it was the previous verbal warning that caused Andrew Skelton to act as he did.

Subsequently 5,518 Morrisons' employees, whose data was disclosed, brought claims for compensation under the DPA, under common law for the misuse of private information and in equity for breach of confidence. These claims were made on the basis that Morrisons was primarily liable for its own acts and omissions, and vicariously liable for the actions of Skelton that harmed his fellow workers.

Five key takeaways from the High Court decision:

1. Group Litigation: the group litigation issue had in fact been dealt with in earlier proceedings. The claimant lawyer, originally representing 2000 claimants, sought permission for time to allow other potential claimants to join the litigation. The court granted a Group Litigation Order (GLO), and set a long stop date by which the impacted employees could join, so that the number of claimants for the liability hearing was 5,518.

Comment: We believe this is one of the first, if not the first, GLO for a data protection / misuse of private information / breach of confidence claim. The future potential impact is significant – as both awareness of data protection law increases (particularly in the run up to May 2018 and the GDPR becoming live) and the frequency of material data breaches rises. As had long been feared, the establishment of liability in respect of a large group of data subjects for a security failure opens the door to potentially enormous liabilities of employers / data controllers, even if each individual loss is low.

2. Vicarious Liability but not primary liability: The claimants alleged breaches of the following of the DPA's data protection principles (DPPs), and related rules in relation to misuse of private information and breach of confidence:

DPP1 (fair and lawful processing) on the basis that none of the claimants had consented to Skelton processing their data by copying the payroll data, making an extract of that data and then sending that extract to the file sharing website.

DPP2 (purpose limitation) on the basis that the payroll data was processed in a manner incompatible with the purpose for which it was obtained (i.e. it was processed not only for administration, payroll and audit purposes but was also processed for criminal purposes).

DPP3 (the requirement for the personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive) and DPP5 (the requirement for personal data not to be kept longer than necessary) which the claimants claimed had been breached but did not elaborate on how it had been breached.

DPP7 (the requirement to have appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data) on the basis of the alleged failures described in point 3 below, which largely relate to the fact Skelton was entrusted with handling the payroll data, and his actions in relation to the data wasn't monitored, nor was the data promptly deleted.

The court had to decide three things:

  1. whether Morrisons itself had breached any of the DPPs
  2. whether Morrisons had primary liability for breach of the DPPs in relation to actions which it had not authorised i.e. the actions of Skelton
  3. whether it had vicarious liability for Skelton's actions.

In relation to A (breach of the DPPs by Morrisons themselves), the Court found that Morrisons had not breached DPPs 1, 2, 3 or 5 as Morrisons were not the data controller at the time of these breaches (KPMG, the auditor, and Skelton himself, were) and as Morrisons were not the data controller, they did not owe a duty to the claimants in respect of those breaches.

In relation to DPP7 (requirement to have appropriate technical and organisational measures) the Court found that Morrisons were in breach in one respect by failing to have an organised system for the deletion of data that is temporarily held outside its usual secure repository i.e. the payroll data on Skelton's work laptop. The Court noted that a practice of checking that employees had performed a process such as deletion may in some circumstances lead to the employee thinking that their employer mistrusted him/her. However, it considered that this could be mitigated by having a clear understanding amongst employees, created from top down, that it would be part of usual routine for managers to check that sensitive data had been deleted. That said, the Court considered that Morrisons' breach did not cause the unauthorised disclosure, and therefore did not cause the damage to the claimants – (see further at paragraph 3 below).

In relation to B (primary liability for breach of DPPs in relation to the unauthorised acts), Morrisons could not have primary liability for the breaches of DPPs 1, 2, 3 or 5 or the related alleged breaches of confidence or misuse of private information, as Morrisons did not disclose the information or misuse it – it was Skelton, acting without authority and criminally.

In relation to C (vicarious liability), the Court held that Morrisons were vicariously liable for the actions of Skelton. The test, as set out in the Supreme Court's decision in Mohamud v Morrisons is:

  • What is the function or field of activities that had been entrusted to the employee, or in other words, what is the nature of his/her job?
  • Is there a sufficient connection between the nature of the employee's job and the wrongdoing to make it right for the employer to be held vicariously liable?

In Mohamud, the Supreme Court found that an employee's physical attack on a customer was so closely connected with his employment that Morrisons was vicariously liable for the customer's injuries. For more information, click here for our client alert on this case.

In this case, the Court relied on the following findings of fact to find that Skelton's criminal act of disclosing the payroll data was sufficiently closely connected to his employment so as to make Morrisons vicariously liable:

In this case, the Court relied on the following findings of fact to find that Skelton's criminal act of disclosing the payroll data was sufficiently closely connected to his employment so as to make Morrisons vicariously liable:

  1. There was an unbroken thread that linked Skelton's work to the unauthorised disclosure and what happened was a seamless and continuous sequence of events. Skelton had formed his plan when he knew he was to be the go-between Morrisons and KPMG, even before his first unlawful act of transferring the data from his work laptop to personal USB stick;
  2. Morrisons had deliberately entrusted Skelton with the payroll data – this was not a case where his work merely gave him access to that data but he was chosen as the assigned person to send that data to KPMG. Morrisons therefore bore the risk that their trust may be displaced.
  3. Skelton's task was to receive the payroll data, store it and then transfer it to KPMG. The fact that he chose to disclose it to others was closely related to the task he had been given, even it if had not been authorised.
  4. Skelton was acting in the course of his employment when he received the payroll data – the chain of events then leading to its disclosure was unbroken and the fact that the disclosures were made some time later, from home, by use of his personal equipment, on a non-working day, did not disengage them from his employment.

The Court also considered that it would be right for Morrisons to be held vicariously liable under the principle of social justice as Morrisons were more likely to have the means to compensate the claimants than Skelton and can be expected to have insurance against such liability.

It was clear, however, that the Court was uncomfortable with the outcome of its decision on vicarious liability as it recognised that its decision might render the Court an accessory in furthering Skelton's criminal aims. It therefore granted permission to appeal the vicarious liability decision.


If the ruling on vicarious liability stands, the case shows that for employers, avoiding liability is not simply a case of demonstrating that appropriate measures have been implemented in accordance with data protection legislation. For employee driven "inside jobs", they will want to consider even stricter measures to limit risk, as they may be liable for employee criminal behaviour regardless.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions