It has long been accepted that the eye-watering costs of English libel litigation present a double ‘chill.’ On the one hand, the fear of having to defend a libel action means that many public interest news stories are spiked or watered down before publication. Meanwhile, when an ordinary person discovers that a lie has been published about them in a national newspaper, the cost of seeking redress is prohibitive. Bringing or defending a claim immediately puts a party on the hook for tens of thousands of pounds. If the case goes to trial then you risk paying a six-figure sum. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Costs (Page 1 of 2)
On 11 April 2017 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed three appeals brought by media organisations challenging the article 10 ECHR compliance of the recovery of additional liabilities (CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums) from defendants in ‘publication cases.’ ([2017] UKSC 33). Continue reading
The use of CFAs in cases against the media had become a scandal long before this appeal was heard. A mechanism intended to provide access to justice had become a gravy train for claimant lawyers. As claimant lawyers know, the mere threat of a CFA and ATE insurance could be used to bulldoze a media company into submission. Continue reading
The Supreme Court has announced that judgment will be handed down in the cases of Times Newspapers v Flood, Frost v MGN and Miller v Associated Newspapers at 9.45 am on Tuesday 11 April 2017. Continue reading
The Supreme Court is currently hearing three joined appeals brought by media organisations challenging the Convention compatibility of the recoverability of conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees/uplift and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums (“additional liabilities”) in libel and privacy claims. Continue reading
On 26 October 2016, the Supreme Court (Lords Mance, Reed and Toulson) gave Mirror Group Newspapers permission to appeal against a decision of Mann J on costs and CFAs. Continue reading
The joined appeals in Flood v Times Newspapers and Miller v Associated Newspapers in which the press arguing that CFA success fees and ATE insurance are contrary to Article 10 have been listed for a three day hearing on 24, 25 and 26 January 2017. Continue reading
The corporate papers that are determined to resist Leveson-based reform are currently playing what they evidently consider to be their strongest card, and it is this: “If the changes are implemented as promised, a publication that is sued for libel and wins its case will be forced to pay the costs of the losing side”. Continue reading
Last month PR guru Max Clifford was ordered to pay the former Royal Butler Paul Burrell £5,000 compensation for the unauthorised disclosure of private information contained within a letter Mr Burrell had sent him. There is a judgment on liability and quantum (Burrell v Clifford [2016] EWHC 294 (Ch)), although Mr Justice Mann’s earlier decision dismissing Mr Clifford’s strike out application on limitation and triviality grounds (Burrell v Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch)) is arguably of wider importance. This was discussed on the Brett Wilson blog last year. Continue reading
In a judgment delivered at the High Court today in the case of Miller v Associated Newspapers, Mr Justice Mitting rejected a Human Rights Act challenge to recoverable success fees and ATE insurance premiums brought by the Daily Mail. However, he granted a certificate for a “leapfrog” appeal direct to the Supreme Court. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2023 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑