Abu v MGN Ltd. [2004] EWHC 90017 (Costs) (19 July 2004)

Abu v MGN Ltd. [2004] EWHC 90017 (Costs) (19 July 2004)

The costs claimed by the Claimant are not disproportionate to the benefit gained by the litigation, given the Defendant's persistent reluctance to offer an apology and the complexity of the proceedings. The delay in settlement was caused by the Defendant's conduct, not by the Claimant's pursuit of higher damages.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 90017 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Costs Assessment After Settlement
Outcome
Costs claimed by the Claimant are not disproportionate; provisional view is that permission to appeal should not be given.
Legal Topics
Libel, Offer of Amends, Apology, Costs Assessment, Proportionality
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Offer of Amends Apology Costs Assessment Proportionality

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

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Costs Assessment After Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs claimed by the Claimant are disproportionate to the benefit gained by the litigation
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Defendant justified the costs incurred
  3. 3 Whether the offer of amends procedure led to a saving of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The costs claimed by the Claimant are not disproportionate to the benefit gained by the litigation, given the Defendant's persistent reluctance to offer an apology and the complexity of the proceedings. The delay in settlement was caused by the Defendant's conduct, not by the Claimant's pursuit of higher damages.

Court Disposition

Costs claimed by the Claimant are not disproportionate; provisional view is that permission to appeal should not be given.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of costs to be concluded
  • Parties may make submissions on costs when judgment is formally delivered