Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Limited

A statement in open court following settlement is a claimant’s opportunity to explain the claim, its effect and the settlement. The court should intervene only where there is real or substantial unfairness, disproportion or misrepresentation. It should not require a neutral account of both parties’ cases.

Because the statement benefits from absolute privilege, allegations must not be presented as proved facts where there has been no trial. Particular care is required when third parties are named. Assertions may be expressed as the claimant’s belief, allegation or understanding, or as what disclosed documents appeared to show. A statement may express the claimant’s view that a settlement amounts to vindication, but must make the no-admissions basis transparent.

The claimants had settled privacy and related claims against News Group Newspapers Limited. Several claimants sought to read unilateral statements in open court after agreement on the settlement terms had failed. The defendant objected to the proposed wording and applied for the objections to be heard in private or by adopting a convention of referring only indirectly to disputed passages.

The court first determined whether publicity of the argument would defeat the object of the hearing. It then considered the general principles governing intervention in a unilateral statement in open court, and applied them in detail to the proposed statement of Sienna Miller. The central issues were fairness, proportionality, the no-admissions basis of the settlement, the presentation of allegations as facts, and references to third parties.

1. Public hearing. The application to hear the objections in private was dismissed. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 39 rule 2, privacy was permitted only to the extent necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and where publicity would defeat the object of the hearing. The disputed material consisted principally of allegations already contained in public court documents. Reporting the arguments would not defeat the hearing’s purpose. The court could reasonably expect fair reporting which distinguished allegations from facts proved at trial.
2. Applicable test. Following and applying Murray v Associated Newspapers Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 488 and Webb v Lewis Silkin LLP [2016] EWHC 1225 (Ch), the court should intervene only where the proposed statement involved real or substantial unfairness, disproportion or misrepresentation. A unilateral statement is the claimant’s account and is not intended to be a neutral substitute for a bilateral statement. The court should discourage nit-picking and should avoid resolving the underlying disputed issues.
3. Fair presentation. The statement had to reflect that the settlement was made without admissions of liability and that no findings had been made at trial. Allegations, inferences from disclosure and the claimant’s beliefs could be included, but material appearing to establish disputed facts required qualification. Naming third parties in terms implying established responsibility was unfair where they had not been found liable and had no opportunity to respond. The wording could instead identify an allegation, state the claimant’s belief, or say that documents appeared to show the matter.
4. Proportionality. The importance of the claim and seriousness of the allegations were relevant. The exact amount or broad level of a confidential settlement was not a relevant consideration, although the settlement was substantial rather than nominal. The proposed statement could explain the claimant’s feelings, the reasons for bringing and settling the claim, and the claimant’s understanding of the disclosed material.
5. Application. Most objections to Ms Miller’s statement failed or could be addressed by modest redrafting. Some passages had to be qualified, including passages suggesting that unlawful activity or third-party responsibility had been established. The concluding assertion that the settlement was tantamount to an admission could remain, but had to state expressly that the settlement was reached on a no-admissions basis.

This was a first-instance decision in the High Court. The judgment records earlier settlement arrangements and case-management directions, but no appellate decision.