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 because, although there is a substantial risk of disproportionate costs, that risk can be adequately controlled by detailed assessment by a costs judge, and the case does not meet the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold required by the current rules.

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

Civil (defamation/libel) / Interlocutory Application for Costs Capping Order

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

A costs capping order is not justified because, although there is a substantial risk of disproportionate costs, that risk can be adequately controlled by detailed assessment by a costs judge, and the case does not meet the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold required by the current rules.

Court Disposition

Application for costs capping order refused