The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights today handed down judgment in the case of Associated Newspapers v United Kingdom (App No 37398/21).   It was claimed that success fees and ATE premiums under CFA’s violated the newspapers Article 10 right to freedom of express.  It was held that success fees did violate Article 10 but there was no violation in relation to recoverable ATE premiums.

The case arose out of two cases, Sicri v Associated Newspapers and Hanson v Associated Newspapers. The first set of proceedings had been brought by Mr Sicri after the MailOnline had named him as a having been arrested as a suspect in the 2017 terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena. The second had been brought by Ms Hanson,  a clinical psychologist named in the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline in the context of the police investigation into historic child sex abuse, known as “Operation Midland”.

In the first case, Mr Sicri was successful at trial ([2021] 4 WLR 9) and recovered damages of £83,000. and costs including a success fee of £245,775.   In the second case Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damaes of £65,000 and costs.  Ms Hanson’s costs included an ATE premium of £335,160.

The Court of Human Rights concluded that the obligation on Associated Newspapers to pay substantial costs including success fees to Mr Sicri had been disproportionate. On the other hand, the Court did not find that the requirement for the newspaper company to cover ATE insurance premiums had been disproportionate.

This is something of a pyrrhic victory as recoverable success fees were abolished with effect from 6 April 2019 (although this did not apply to CFAs entered into before that date).   The case is, nevertheless, a welcome conversion on the part of Associated Newspapers to the principle that independent judges should be able to review legislative decisions against human rights standards.

We will publish a full case comment in early course.