Price v MGN Ltd

In substantial preliminary trials in media and communications cases, the parties should obtain an order for the preliminary issue before the hearing and address costs budgeting in advance. This enables active case management, scrutiny of the issues and prior control of expenditure.

On summary assessment, costs must be both reasonably and proportionately incurred and reasonable and proportionate in amount. These are cumulative requirements. Disproportionate costs may therefore be reduced even if reasonably or necessarily incurred. The court must consider the factors in the Civil Procedure Rules, including the sums in issue, complexity, wider importance and any available budget.

The claimant brought a libel action against the defendant. The court had previously determined meaning, summary judgment and abuse-of-process applications in favour of the claimant, so the action was to proceed to trial.

This judgment concerned the claimant’s costs of those applications. The parties agreed that the claimant was entitled to costs, assessed summarily on the standard basis. The claimant sought £119,612.60 inclusive of VAT; the defendant contended for an award of approximately £33,000. The issues were the appropriate approach to costs management and the reasonable and proportionate amount recoverable.

1. Costs management. In substantial applications for preliminary trials in media and communications cases, the parties and the court should address separately and in advance whether a preliminary issue should be tried. If such a trial is sought, costs budgeting should also be addressed before the hearing. This remains appropriate even where the application is by consent or unopposed.
2. The prior-order requirement enables active case management. The court can scrutinise the application papers, confine issues, prevent premature or unsuitable applications being heard together and avoid wasted preparation. The guidance in Sube v News Group and Bokova v Associated Newspapers Limited was applied and reinforced. Ashraf v Dunya News provided a further illustration of the need for advance judicial scrutiny.
3. Assessment principles. Under CPR 44.4(1)(a), the receiving party may recover only costs that were proportionately and reasonably incurred and are proportionate and reasonable in amount. The requirements are cumulative. Doubts are resolved in favour of the paying party, subject to the need not to adopt an excessively critical approach to work reasonably justified by the case.
4. The court applied the factors in CPR 44.3(5) and CPR 44.4(3), including the sums in issue, complexity, reputation or public importance, and the last approved budget where one exists. The absence of prior budgeting made the assessment more difficult and justified close scrutiny, but did not require the court to disregard the importance of the claim or the reasonable need for detailed factual investigation.
5. The court reduced the claimed solicitors’ rates and time, attendance costs and counsel’s brief fees, while allowing justified preparatory work and disbursements. The claimant’s costs were awarded, subject to the final calculation of the figures identified by the court and excluding the costs of the day of judgment. The claimant would recover them if successful at trial or on settlement.

The judgment records that the court had earlier decided the defendant’s applications for determination of meaning, summary judgment and dismissal as an abuse of process in favour of the claimant: [2018] EWHC 3014 (QB). This judgment dealt with the costs of those applications and related case-management directions.