Douglas & Ors v Hello! Ltd. & Ors [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch) (23 January 2004)

Douglas & Ors v Hello! Ltd. & Ors [2004] EWHC 63 (Ch) (23 January 2004)

Claimants are awarded a proportion of their costs reflecting both their substantive success and the unnecessary costs incurred on failed issues, with costs assessed on the standard basis due to prior judicial disapproval already marked; interest awarded on damages and costs, and Court of Appeal costs order set aside due to fraud, replaced by no order as to costs.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 63 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Douglas; Claimant: Catherine Zeta-Jones; Claimant: Northern & Shell PLC; Defendant: Hello! Ltd.; Defendant: Hola, S.A.; Defendant: Eduardo Sanchez Junco; Defendant: The Marquesa de Varela; Defendant: Neneta Overseas Ltd.; Defendant: Philip Ramey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Ruling
Outcome
Claimants awarded 75% of costs for Liability Hearing and 85% for Quantum Hearing, both on standard basis; interest awarded on damages and costs; Court of Appeal costs order set aside and replaced by no order as to costs; costs of unsuccessful claims against Marquesa and Neneta not awarded.
Legal Topics
Costs, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection Act, Conspiracy, Economic Torts, Privacy, Interest on Damages, Interest on Costs
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Data Protection Costs Breach of Confidence Data Protection Act Conspiracy +4 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Douglas

Claimant

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Claimant

Northern & Shell PLC

Claimant

Hello! Ltd.

Defendant

Hola, S.A.

Defendant

Eduardo Sanchez Junco

Defendant

The Marquesa de Varela

Defendant

Neneta Overseas Ltd.

Defendant

Philip Ramey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs orders following liability and quantum hearings
  2. 2 Interest on damages and costs
  3. 3 Setting aside Court of Appeal costs order due to fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants are awarded a proportion of their costs reflecting both their substantive success and the unnecessary costs incurred on failed issues, with costs assessed on the standard basis due to prior judicial disapproval already marked; interest awarded on damages and costs, and Court of Appeal costs order set aside due to fraud, replaced by no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Claimants awarded 75% of costs for Liability Hearing and 85% for Quantum Hearing, both on standard basis; interest awarded on damages and costs; Court of Appeal costs order set aside and replaced by no order as to costs; costs of unsuccessful claims against Marquesa and Neneta not awarded.

Orders

  • Hello! Defendants to pay 75% of Claimants' costs of Liability Hearing, assessed on standard basis.
  • Hello! Defendants to pay 85% of Claimants' costs of Quantum Hearing, assessed on standard basis.