Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWHC 397 (QB) (05 February 2016)

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWHC 397 (QB) (05 February 2016)

The award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE premium) to the claimant is not incompatible with the defendant's right of expression as a publisher under Article 10 ECHR, as the domestic scheme is prescribed by law, serves a legitimate social purpose, and is not a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression. The judge is bound by the House of Lords' decision in Campbell v MGN Limited (No.2) to allow recovery of success fees, and the ATE premium is justified on its own merits.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 397
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Andrew James Miller; Defendant/appellant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Costs Assessment Following Trial and Appeals
Outcome
Award of additional liabilities to claimant not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR; claimant entitled to recover success fees and ATE premium.
Legal Topics
Defamation, Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Defamation Costs Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance Article 10 ECHR

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew James Miller

Claimant/respondent

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Costs Assessment Following Trial and Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE premium) to the claimant is incompatible with the defendant's right of expression under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE premium) to the claimant is not incompatible with the defendant's right of expression as a publisher under Article 10 ECHR, as the domestic scheme is prescribed by law, serves a legitimate social purpose, and is not a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression. The judge is bound by the House of Lords' decision in Campbell v MGN Limited (No.2) to allow recovery of success fees, and the ATE premium is justified on its own merits.

Court Disposition

Award of additional liabilities to claimant not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR; claimant entitled to recover success fees and ATE premium.

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to recover success fees and ATE premium as part of costs.