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)

A costs capping order was refused because the bulk of costs had already been incurred and detailed assessment would provide adequate control; a costs management order was granted amending the Second Defendant's budget for certain items to ensure proportionality; further disclosure and Part 18 requests against the Claimant were refused as unnecessary and disproportionate, except for a direction to clarify the loss of emails in an amended Disclosure Statement.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3793 (QB)
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/harassment/interim Applications) / Pre Trial Case Management and Costs Applications
Outcome
Costs capping order refused; costs management order granted amending Second Defendant's budget; further disclosure and Part 18 requests against Claimant refused except for clarification on deleted emails.
Legal Topics
Costs Capping, Costs Management, Disclosure, Part 18 Requests, Case Management, Jurisdiction, Search Engine Liability
Defamation Harassment Civil Procedure Costs 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 4 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/harassment/interim Applications) / 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

A costs capping order was refused because the bulk of costs had already been incurred and detailed assessment would provide adequate control; a costs management order was granted amending the Second Defendant's budget for certain items to ensure proportionality; further disclosure and Part 18 requests against the Claimant were refused as unnecessary and disproportionate, except for a direction to clarify the loss of emails in an amended Disclosure Statement.

Court Disposition

Costs capping order refused; costs management order granted amending Second Defendant's budget; further disclosure and Part 18 requests against Claimant refused except for clarification on deleted emails.

Orders

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