Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE insurance premium) to the claimant is not incompatible with the defendant’s right of expression as a publisher under Article 10 ECHR, as the scheme is prescribed by law, serves a legitimate social purpose, and is not a disproportionate interference with...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew James Miller; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Post Trial Costs Assessment; Reference From Costs Judge to High Court on Compatibility of Additional Liabilities With Article 10 ECHR
Outcome
Award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE premium) to the claimant is not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR; question referred answered in claimant’s favour.
Legal Topics
Success Fees, ATE Insurance, Costs Recovery, Article 10 ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Access to Justice
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Success Fees ATE Insurance Costs Recovery Article 10 ECHR +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew James Miller

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Post Trial Costs Assessment; Reference From Costs Judge to High Court on Compatibility of Additional Liabilities With Article 10 ECHR

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE insurance premium) to the claimant is incompatible with the defendant’s right of expression as a publisher under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

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

Court Disposition

Award of additional liabilities (success fees and ATE premium) to the claimant is not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR; question referred answered in claimant’s favour.

Orders

  • Award of success fees and ATE insurance premium to the claimant is not incompatible with Article 10 ECHR.
  • Costs to be assessed in accordance with the judgment.