Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc

Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc

The Claimant achieved partial success in his applications, particularly in obtaining reductions to the Second Defendant's costs budget and admissions clarifying factual issues. However, some aspects of the applications were overly ambitious or disproportionate, justifying a 25% reduction in recoverable costs. The Second Defendant's application largely failed, but the Claimant's conduct regarding email deletion warranted a similar reduction. The total recoverable costs were summarily assessed at £22,500, reflecting proportionality and the outcome of the applications.

Parties
Claimant: Daniel Hegglin; Defendant: Person(s) Unknown; Second Defendant: Google Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (costs Determination)
Outcome
Applications determined with costs orders; partial success for Claimant; costs summarily assessed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Disclosure, Case Management, Part 18 Requests
Civil Procedure Costs Disclosure Case Management Part 18 Requests

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Hegglin

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown

Defendant

Google Inc.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping or management order should be made
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs for withdrawn or partially successful applications
  3. 3 Proportionality and reasonableness of costs incurred

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant achieved partial success in his applications, particularly in obtaining reductions to the Second Defendant's costs budget and admissions clarifying factual issues. However, some aspects of the applications were overly ambitious or disproportionate, justifying a 25% reduction in recoverable costs. The Second Defendant's application largely failed, but the Claimant's conduct regarding email deletion warranted a similar reduction. The total recoverable costs were summarily assessed at £22,500, reflecting proportionality and the outcome of the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications determined with costs orders; partial success for Claimant; costs summarily assessed.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant 75% of his costs of the costs cap/management application.
  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant 75% of his costs of the Part 18 and disclosure application.