Case: Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited [2025] EWHC 106 (KB)
Briefly, the circumstances were that each of the seven Claimants alleged against the Defendant that their private information had been misused by the Defendant and in the case of the First Claimant an additional claim was made for breach of confidence. The allegations made by the Claimants were “strenuously denied” by the Defendant. Limitation was also in issue.
Prior to the hearing, the parties filed budgets in form Precedent H. Each of the Claimants filed a budget with the exception of the 3rd and 4th Claimants who filed a single budget. The Defendant filed budgets responding to each of the Claimants’ budgets and a further budget setting out what it called common costs.
The combined total of the Claimants’ budgets was £18,744,761.72 of which estimated costs were £14,634.647.40 and the combined total of the Defendant’s budgets was £19,850,282.40 of which estimated costs were £11,724,902.00.
Senior Master Cook and Mr Justice Nicklin found the sums excessive. They set out their reasons as follows:
1 – Large sums were presented as contingencies dependent upon a plethora of eventualities.
2 – The solicitors’ hourly rates were high, well outside the guideline rates. (For e.g; the Defendant’s solicitor’s hourly rate was claimed at £740 per hour )
3 – There was considerable overlap between each of the Claimants’ pleaded cases in circumstances where the three Claimant firms of solicitors were instructing the same counsel team.
4 – There was considerable uncertainty concerning the litigation route of the claims.
5 – Fifth, insufficient allowance seems to have been made for the fact that many of the parties’ respective legal teams were involved in the ‘Leveson Inquiry’ and thus the respective legal teams therefore had acquired considerable expertise in this genre of litigation previously and were not making a fresh start.
Senior Master Cook also passed critique on the additional budget addressing common costs in the absence of a Group Litigation Order. Senior Master Cook went on to say that ‘individual costs are those costs incurred in relation to an individual claim on a group register and common costs are those costs incurred in relation to the GLO issues’. However in the absence of a Group Litigation Order in this case, the additional budget was not relevant.
The Court considered ‘proportionality’. Senior Master Cook stated that despite the number of Claimants ‘these claims are really rather simple (particularly if compared to the issues that commonly arise in clinical negligence claims, for example). In respect of each of the articles upon which the Claimants rely, they say they were the product of unlawful information gathering. This is not a subtle question. The Claimants will either succeed or fail in demonstrating the proposition. If the relevant Claimant fails, that will be the end of the claim in respect of that article. If the Claimant succeeds, the question of remedy will arise and on this issue the law is clear’.
Senior Master Cook then proceeded to cost mange the parties respective budgets and reduced the budgeted costs for the Claimants from £14,634.647.40 to £4,084,000.00 and from £11,724,902.00 to £4,445,000.00 for the Defendant.
Commentary – A damning reminder of the Court’s rigorous approach to cost management despite the involvement of high-profile individuals. The case serves as an aide-memoire of the court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and proportionality in legal proceedings. It is interesting to note that the Court found that an hourly rate of £740 per hour for a Grade A file handler was high, making reference to the current Guideline Hourly Rates. We understand that the CJC are considering implementing the recommendations of a new, higher, band for complex, high value commercial work, regardless of the location. The decision does however ‘obscure’ how the Court defines ‘complexity’ in terms of proportionality and rates. If a case involving multiple parties, liability being denied, limitation being in issue and a 45 day Trial is not complex, then what is ‘complex’?! The awaited guidance and “test” to be applied when considering a departure from the GHR cannot come soon enough!