Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc [2014] EWHC 3798 (QB) (14 November 2014)

Hegglin v Person(s) Unknown & Google Inc [2014] EWHC 3798 (QB) (14 November 2014)

The Claimant achieved partial success in his applications, warranting recovery of 75% of his costs for each application. The Second Defendant's costs were found disproportionate. Disclosure requests must be proportionate and not unduly burdensome. The Second Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant £22,500 in costs, reflecting a 25% reduction for overbroad or unsuccessful aspects of the applications.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3798
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Hegglin; Defendant: Person(s) Unknown; Defendant: Google Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications on Costs and Disclosure Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applications determined with partial success for Claimant; costs awarded to Claimant with reductions.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Disclosure, Part 18 Requests, Summary Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Management Disclosure Part 18 Requests Summary Assessment

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

Parties

Daniel Hegglin

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown

Defendant

Google Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications on Costs and Disclosure Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs capping order or costs management order should be made
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs for withdrawn and partially successful applications
  3. 3 Appropriateness of disclosure and Part 18 requests

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant achieved partial success in his applications, warranting recovery of 75% of his costs for each application. The Second Defendant's costs were found disproportionate. Disclosure requests must be proportionate and not unduly burdensome. The Second Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant £22,500 in costs, reflecting a 25% reduction for overbroad or unsuccessful aspects of the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications determined with partial success for Claimant; costs awarded to Claimant with reductions.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant £22,500 in costs for the three applications, reflecting a 25% discount.
  • No order for costs of compliance with amended Disclosure Statement if Claimant recovers costs at trial.