Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs) (01 June 2018)

Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs) (01 June 2018)

The agreed reasonable individual base costs for each claimant, when aggregated with the agreed proportionate common costs, are not disproportionate under the post-2013 test of proportionality in CPR 44.3(5), given the substantial value of non-monetary relief, the complexity of the litigation, the public importance, and reputational factors, even where costs exceed the sums in issue.

Citation
[2018] EWHC B13 (Costs)
Parties
Claimants: Various Claimants in Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Post Trial Costs Assessment Following Partial Settlement and Trial of Representative Claims
Outcome
All agreed reasonable individual base costs are held to be proportionate; no reduction is required under the post-2013 proportionality test.
Legal Topics
Proportionality of Costs, Assessment of Costs, Phone Hacking Litigation, Non Monetary Relief, Success Fees, Common and Individual Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Law Privacy Law Proportionality of Costs Assessment of Costs Phone Hacking Litigation Non Monetary Relief Success Fees +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 36
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various Claimants in Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation

Claimants

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Post Trial Costs Assessment Following Partial Settlement and Trial of Representative Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreed reasonable individual base costs for each claimant are proportionate under the post-2013 test of proportionality in CPR 44.3
  2. 2 How to assess proportionality where both common and individual costs are present
  3. 3 The relevance and value of non-monetary relief and wider factors in the proportionality assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The agreed reasonable individual base costs for each claimant, when aggregated with the agreed proportionate common costs, are not disproportionate under the post-2013 test of proportionality in CPR 44.3(5), given the substantial value of non-monetary relief, the complexity of the litigation, the public importance, and reputational factors, even where costs exceed the sums in issue.

Court Disposition

All agreed reasonable individual base costs are held to be proportionate; no reduction is required under the post-2013 proportionality test.

Orders

  • The agreed reasonable individual base costs for each claimant are allowed in full as proportionate.
  • The agreed proportionate common costs are to be added to each claimant's individual costs as appropriate.