Ronaldo v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd

Where related libel claims concern materially different publications, meanings or defences, the court may order separate trials even though a joint hearing would save costs and involve overlapping evidence. The decisive consideration is the balance between procedural economy and the risk of injustice or jury confusion. The claims may be tried consecutively where that best manages the overlap.

On interlocutory costs, a party withdrawing a pleaded issue after the opposing party changes or narrows its case is not automatically liable for the resulting costs. The court must assess the circumstances in the round and make the fair order.

Cristiano Ronaldo brought separate libel claims against Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd and Telegraph Media Group Ltd concerning articles published on successive days about his activities in Los Angeles while recovering from ankle surgery.

At a pre-trial review, the court considered whether the actions should be tried together. Although the claims involved common witnesses and overlapping factual issues, the articles, pleaded meanings and defences differed. The court also considered responsibility for costs arising from the Telegraph’s withdrawal of its fair comment defence after amendments to the claimant’s pleaded meaning.

1. Trial arrangements. The two actions were ordered to be tried separately, with the Telegraph action following the Mirror action. The court accepted that a joint trial might save costs and avoid inconsistent verdicts, but identified significant differences in the character and content of the articles, the meanings relied on, and the defences pleaded.
2. The risk of injustice to the Telegraph was material. There was a real possibility that the jury’s assessment of the Telegraph article would be affected by its view of the Mirror article, notwithstanding directions to consider each defendant separately. The additional cost of separate trials was outweighed by that risk. The claims could therefore be heard consecutively while preserving appropriate procedural economy.
3. Costs arising from amendments. The court considered the approach expressed in Taranissi v BBC, but held that it did not establish that a party withdrawing a pleaded issue could avoid costs only where it had been misled. The court was entitled to consider the matter in the round where withdrawal resulted from a change or narrowing of the opposing party’s case.
4. The claimant had removed the aspect of the Telegraph claim concerning Sir Alex Ferguson. On the evidence, withdrawal of the fair comment defence was a legitimate response to that change of case. The court declined to infer that the defence had been withdrawn for other reasons, including concerns about evidence or malice. The draft costs orders proposed by the Telegraph were approved, subject to the stated addition and undertaking concerning costs attributable to the withdrawn privilege defence.