V v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Ors

V v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Ors

Departure from the general rule of no order as to costs is not justified in this case because the Respondents' conduct did not add materially to the Applicant's costs, their arguments were properly arguable, and making a costs order would be an unprincipled method of expressing disapproval of their reporting.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: V; Respondent: Associated Newspapers Limited; Respondent: Times Newspapers Limited; Respondent: Independent News and Media Limited; Respondent: Telegraph Media Group Limited; Respondent: Associated Press
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Court of Protection Proceedings / Post Judgment, Application for Costs Order
Outcome
Application for costs order refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Reporting Restrictions, Article 8 ECHR, Pro Bono Representation
Civil Procedure Media Law Human Rights Costs Reporting Restrictions Article 8 ECHR Pro Bono Representation

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V

Applicant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Respondent

Times Newspapers Limited

Respondent

Independent News and Media Limited

Respondent

Telegraph Media Group Limited

Respondent

Associated Press

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Court of Protection Proceedings / Post Judgment, Application for Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents should pay the Applicant's costs on an indemnity basis for the period up to 5pm on 8 December 2015
  2. 2 Whether pro bono costs can be awarded under s.194 Legal Services Act 2007 in the Court of Protection
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the Respondents justifies a departure from the general rule on costs in the Court of Protection

Ratio Decidendi

Departure from the general rule of no order as to costs is not justified in this case because the Respondents' conduct did not add materially to the Applicant's costs, their arguments were properly arguable, and making a costs order would be an unprincipled method of expressing disapproval of their reporting.

Court Disposition

Application for costs order refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • No order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs.