OUT-LAW.COM — Sheriff awards damages of £750 for single spam email
5 March 2007
An individual has won a spam case in the UK for just the second time. Gordon Dick has won a damages award of £750 plus expenses against Transcom Internet Services after suing the ISP for sending him a single email. The case did not go to a full trial.
OUT-LAW has seen the Sheriff Court’s note of Extract for Payment ordering Transcom to pay Dick damages of £750 plus 8% interest since May 2006 plus £618.66 expenses – though the two parties are still in dispute over how the case was conducted and its outcome.
Transcom director William Smith told OUT-LAW that his firm has not received any official notice of a judgment. Dick says that he has proof that the notice was received and signed for by Transcom.
This unedifying case brings to mind Samuel Johnson’s lofty retort when asked to choose between two minor poets: “Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.”
We automatically stop accepting comments 180 days after a post is published. If you would like to know more about this subject, please contact us and we'll try to help.
6th March 2007: 'James Miller' said:
The point about this case and the earlier one where Roberts successfully sued in the English courts is that they set a good precedent, even if the law isn't perfect.
The precedent they set, is that the Courts will take someone who feels aggrieved about spam seriously.
Reputable companies will take unsolicited e-mails seriously and these sort of cases will make them check lists. In the last few months, I complained to both Tesco and Asda who had bought a list, which contained errors. Tesco removed the name with an apology, whereas it took the efforts of the Information Commissioner to get Asda to comply.
But all of this doesn't sort out the main source of spam, which is products aimed at a US market.
Reply to James Miller?
6th March 2007: 'Roger Whitehead' said:
James,
Thanks for your comment. While possibly encouraging a worthwhile cause, this seems to me a grubby little case (hence my quoting Johnson).
I don't know whether you noticed but both Dick and Transcom belonged to an email group run by Nominet, of which Dick is or was a non-exec director. It's not impossible therefore that this case was motivated by less high-minded motives than Dick is admitting.
Also, it's my understanding that the decisions of small claims courts do not act as precedents for higher courts. The Roberts case was tried in Jersey, by the way, and the Dick one in Edinburgh, so are possibly even less likely to influence English (and Welsh) law.
Congratulations on getting results from Tesco and Asda.
Regards,
Roger
Reply to Roger Whitehead?
