Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc

Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc

The application for a costs capping order is refused because detailed assessment after trial will provide adequate control over disproportionate costs and most costs have already been incurred. However, a costs management order is made amending the Second Defendant's budget for future costs to ensure proportionality. The application for further disclosure and answers to Part 18 requests is refused as unnecessary and disproportionate, except for a direction that the Claimant provide an amended Disclosure Statement explaining the loss of emails.

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 / Pre Trial Case Management and Costs Budgeting
Outcome
Costs capping order refused; costs management order granted in part; further disclosure and Part 18 requests refused except as directed.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Costs Capping, Disclosure, Part 18 Requests, Case Management, Jurisdiction, Online Defamation
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Management Costs Capping Disclosure Part 18 Requests Case Management Jurisdiction +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Hegglin

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown

First Defendant

Google Inc.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Case Management and Costs Budgeting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping order or costs management order should be made against the Second Defendant
  2. 2 Whether further disclosure and answers to Part 18 requests should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether the Second Defendant's costs are disproportionate and require court intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a costs capping order is refused because detailed assessment after trial will provide adequate control over disproportionate costs and most costs have already been incurred. However, a costs management order is made amending the Second Defendant's budget for future costs to ensure proportionality. The application for further disclosure and answers to Part 18 requests is refused as unnecessary and disproportionate, except for a direction that the Claimant provide an amended Disclosure Statement explaining the loss of emails.

Court Disposition

Costs capping order refused; costs management order granted in part; further disclosure and Part 18 requests refused except as directed.

Orders

  • Second Defendant's budget for trial counsel's fees reduced to £98,000.
  • Second Defendant's solicitors' costs for trial reduced to £125,000.