Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc [2014] EWHC 3793 (QB) (14 November 2014)

Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc [2014] EWHC 3793 (QB) (14 November 2014)

The application for a costs capping order was refused because the majority of costs had already been incurred and detailed assessment would provide adequate control over disproportionate costs. However, a costs management order was made amending the Second Defendant's budget for certain items to ensure proportionality. Applications for further disclosure and Part 18 requests were refused as unnecessary or disproportionate.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3793
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Hegglin; First Defendant: Person(s) Unknown; Second Defendant: Google Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/privacy/internet Law) / Pre Trial Case Management and Costs Applications
Outcome
Costs capping order refused; costs management order granted amending Second Defendant's budget; disclosure and Part 18 applications refused or withdrawn.
Legal Topics
Costs Capping, Costs Management, Disclosure, Part 18 Requests, Case Management, Search Engine Liability, Jurisdiction
Defamation Privacy Civil Procedure Internet Law Costs Capping Costs Management Disclosure Part 18 Requests +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Hegglin

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown

First Defendant

Google Inc.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation/privacy/internet Law) / Pre Trial Case Management and Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping order should be made against the Second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether a costs management order should be made amending the Second Defendant's budget
  3. 3 Whether further disclosure or answers to Part 18 requests should be ordered against the Claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a costs capping order was refused because the majority of costs had already been incurred and detailed assessment would provide adequate control over disproportionate costs. However, a costs management order was made amending the Second Defendant's budget for certain items to ensure proportionality. Applications for further disclosure and Part 18 requests were refused as unnecessary or disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Costs capping order refused; costs management order granted amending Second Defendant's budget; disclosure and Part 18 applications refused or withdrawn.

Orders

  • Second Defendant's costs budget amended: counsel's fees for trial capped at £98,000, solicitors' costs for trial capped at £125,000, expert report response capped at £25,000.
  • Claimant to serve amended Disclosure Statement by 4pm on 17 November 2014 explaining loss of emails and relevance.