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, justifying a 75% costs recovery with a 25% discount for overbroad or unsuccessful elements. The Second Defendant's application largely failed, so the Claimant is entitled to 75% of those costs. The total allowable costs are assessed at £30,000, with a 25% discount, resulting in an order for the Second Defendant to pay £22,500 to the Claimant.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3798 (QB)
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 and Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders made; Second Defendant to pay Claimant £22,500 for costs of three applications, reflecting a 25% discount for overbroad or unsuccessful elements.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Disclosure, Part 18 Requests, Costs Capping, Summary Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Management Disclosure Part 18 Requests Costs Capping 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Hegglin

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown

Defendant

Google Inc.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications and Costs Determination

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  2. 2 Entitlement to costs for withdrawn and partially successful applications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 Appropriate discount on costs for overbroad or unsuccessful elements of applications

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant achieved partial success in his applications, justifying a 75% costs recovery with a 25% discount for overbroad or unsuccessful elements. The Second Defendant's application largely failed, so the Claimant is entitled to 75% of those costs. The total allowable costs are assessed at £30,000, with a 25% discount, resulting in an order for the Second Defendant to pay £22,500 to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; Second Defendant to pay Claimant £22,500 for costs of three applications, reflecting a 25% discount for overbroad or unsuccessful elements.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant £22,500 in costs for the three applications.
  • Claimant to recover 75% of costs for his costs management application.