Peacock v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 769 (QB) (08 April 2009)

Peacock v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 769 (QB) (08 April 2009)

A costs capping order is not justified as the risk of disproportionate costs can be adequately controlled by a costs judge at detailed assessment, and the 'exceptionality' principle in the new rules inhibits proactive intervention.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 769
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Peacock; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Costs Capping Application Post Liability Ruling
Outcome
Application for costs capping order refused
Legal Topics
Costs Capping, Conditional Fee Agreements, Freedom of Expression, Case Management
Civil Procedure Defamation Costs Capping Conditional Fee Agreements Freedom of Expression Case Management

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

Parties

Matthew Peacock

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Costs Capping Application Post Liability Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping order should be made in a libel action funded by CFA
  2. 2 Whether the risk of disproportionate costs can be controlled by case management or detailed assessment

Ratio Decidendi

A costs capping order is not justified as the risk of disproportionate costs can be adequately controlled by a costs judge at detailed assessment, and the 'exceptionality' principle in the new rules inhibits proactive intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for costs capping order refused