Rackham v Sandy & Ors [2005] EWHC 1354 (QB) (28 June 2005)

Rackham v Sandy & Ors [2005] EWHC 1354 (QB) (28 June 2005)

The court ordered Mr Sandy to pay two-thirds of Mr Rackham's costs on the standard basis, reflecting his principal role and the proportion of costs attributable to his conduct. Mr Etheridge and Mr Hardman, as successful defendants, were awarded one quarter each of the total defendants' costs against Mr Rackham, also on the standard basis. The court declined to make an indemnity costs order or a Sanderson/Bullock order, finding it would not be just in the circumstances.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1354
Parties
Claimant: Mr Paul Rackham; Defendant: Mr Nigel Sandy; Defendant: Mr Hugh Etheridge; Defendant: Mr Steven Hardman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Post Trial Costs Ruling
Outcome
Costs orders made: Mr Sandy to pay two-thirds of Mr Rackham's costs on the standard basis; Mr Rackham to pay one quarter each of the total defendants' costs to Mr Etheridge and Mr Hardman on the standard basis; no indemnity costs; no Sanderson/Bullock order.
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Costs Orders, Indemnity Costs, Standard Basis Costs, Part 36 Offers
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Qualified Privilege Malice Costs Orders Indemnity Costs Standard Basis Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Paul Rackham

Claimant

Mr Nigel Sandy

Defendant

Mr Hugh Etheridge

Defendant

Mr Steven Hardman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Post Trial Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order for costs following a libel action where the claimant succeeded against one defendant but failed against others?
  2. 2 Should costs be awarded on the standard or indemnity basis?
  3. 3 Is a Sanderson or Bullock order appropriate in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered Mr Sandy to pay two-thirds of Mr Rackham's costs on the standard basis, reflecting his principal role and the proportion of costs attributable to his conduct. Mr Etheridge and Mr Hardman, as successful defendants, were awarded one quarter each of the total defendants' costs against Mr Rackham, also on the standard basis. The court declined to make an indemnity costs order or a Sanderson/Bullock order, finding it would not be just in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: Mr Sandy to pay two-thirds of Mr Rackham's costs on the standard basis; Mr Rackham to pay one quarter each of the total defendants' costs to Mr Etheridge and Mr Hardman on the standard basis; no indemnity costs; no Sanderson/Bullock order.

Orders

  • Mr Sandy to pay two-thirds of Mr Rackham's costs on the standard basis.
  • Mr Rackham to pay one quarter of the total defendants' costs to Mr Etheridge on the standard basis.