King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 90015 (Costs) (02 December 2005)

King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 90015 (Costs) (02 December 2005)

The Claimant's costs, on a global view, were disproportionate to the value of the claim, and the test of necessity must be applied item by item. The success fee for solicitors was reasonable and proportionate at 96.5%, but for counsel, it should be reduced to 67% from the date when the prospects of success improved. Backdating of the CFA for base costs is permissible, but not for the success fee, which cannot be recovered for work done prior to the signing of the CFA. The constitution of the Claimant's legal team must reflect greater delegation and restriction to one counsel.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 90015 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; Defendant: Telegraph Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs in Defamation Proceedings / Post Settlement, Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Claimant's costs to be assessed with significant reductions for disproportionality; success fee for counsel reduced; no recovery of success fee for pre-CFA work.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Success Fees, Proportionality of Costs, Backdating of Cfas, Assessment of Costs, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr)
Civil Procedure Defamation Costs Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Success Fees Proportionality of Costs Backdating of Cfas Assessment of 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

Telegraph Group Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs in Defamation Proceedings / Post Settlement, Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs claimed by the Claimant are proportionate to the value and nature of the defamation claim
  2. 2 Whether success fees under CFAs are reasonable and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether backdating of CFAs and success fees is permissible under the statutory scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's costs, on a global view, were disproportionate to the value of the claim, and the test of necessity must be applied item by item. The success fee for solicitors was reasonable and proportionate at 96.5%, but for counsel, it should be reduced to 67% from the date when the prospects of success improved. Backdating of the CFA for base costs is permissible, but not for the success fee, which cannot be recovered for work done prior to the signing of the CFA. The constitution of the Claimant's legal team must reflect greater delegation and restriction to one counsel.

Court Disposition

Claimant's costs to be assessed with significant reductions for disproportionality; success fee for counsel reduced; no recovery of success fee for pre-CFA work.

Orders

  • Test of necessity to be applied item by item to Claimant's costs.
  • Success fee for counsel limited to 67% from 9 May 2003.