AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Costs are determined by the outcome of the proceedings viewed as a whole, but the court must consider partial success, admissible settlement offers and the parties’ conduct. A claimant who succeeds on only one part of a claim may still recover substantial damages, but that does not prevent a substantial costs order against her where the defendant defeated the principal issues. Accepted undertakings offered before trial may also be relevant to the costs assessment, particularly where they resolved part of the relief sought. The court may apportion costs to reflect the relative importance of the successful and unsuccessful issues and litigation conduct.

The claimant brought privacy proceedings concerning press activity directed at her family, publication of articles speculating about her paternity, and publication of photographs. She sought damages and injunctive relief. She failed on the alleged siege and the article-based privacy claim, but succeeded in relation to three photographs and recovered £15,000. The defendant’s contractual undertakings concerning future photographs were accepted by the court, while the wider dispute about information concerning paternity remained unresolved until trial. Both parties applied for costs. The central issue was the appropriate costs order having regard to partial success, the defendant’s settlement offers and the claimant’s solicitors’ conduct.

1. The court considered the costs discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.3. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs was subject to consideration of all the circumstances, including partial success, admissible offers to settle and whether it was reasonable to raise, pursue or contest particular allegations or issues.
2. The claimant had succeeded on only one part of the original claim. Although the £15,000 damages award substantially exceeded the defendant’s £2,500 offer, the defendant had defeated the substantial claims concerning the alleged siege, the articles and the injunction.
3. The court accepted that, had the photograph issue stood alone, it would have required consideration of the competing Article 8 and Article 10 rights. That did not alter the assessment because the principal sticking point in the correspondence was the paternity issue, on which the claimant failed. The photograph undertakings had already been offered and accepted before trial.
4. The conduct of the claimant’s solicitors was relevant. The preparation of the nanny’s evidence affected the weight to be attached to an important part of the siege case. Its implications were not confined to the witness statement itself.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay 80% of the defendant’s total costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.