Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd

There was good reason to depart from the approved costs budget because the appellant's failure to comply with the practice direction did not disadvantage the respondent or undermine the scheme's objectives; the costs incurred were arguably reasonable and proportionate, and both parties and the court failed to properly manage costs. The essential objects of the scheme were not frustrated, so penalising the appellant for non-compliance alone would be unreasonable and disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sylvia Henry; Defendant/respondent: News Group Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office, Preliminary Issue on Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Budgeting, Practice Direction 51 D, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Departure From Approved Costs Budget
Civil Procedure Defamation Costs Costs Budgeting Practice Direction 51 D Detailed Assessment of Costs Departure From Approved Costs Budget

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvia Henry

Claimant/appellant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office, Preliminary Issue on Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is good reason to depart from the court approved costs budget under Practice Direction 51D paragraph 5.6

Ratio Decidendi

There was good reason to depart from the approved costs budget because the appellant's failure to comply with the practice direction did not disadvantage the respondent or undermine the scheme's objectives; the costs incurred were arguably reasonable and proportionate, and both parties and the court failed to properly manage costs. The essential objects of the scheme were not frustrated, so penalising the appellant for non-compliance alone would be unreasonable and disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The preliminary issue is answered in the affirmative: there is good reason to depart from the approved costs budget.
  • Remitted to costs judge to determine in what respects and to what extent the appellant may recover costs in excess of the budget, considering reasonableness and proportionality.