Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

Costs management requires the court to set reasonable and proportionate parameters for the litigation, rather than reduce expenditure to an irreducible minimum or conduct a detailed assessment in advance. The court should stand back and consider the bigger picture, including the sums in issue, complexity, duplication, delegation, legal-team experience and the likely course of the proceedings. High-profile parties and publicity do not, without more, make relatively straightforward factual issues complex. Where several related claims contain substantial generic overlap, the court may use its broad case-management and costs powers to impose a costs-sharing mechanism even without a group litigation order. Budgets may be revised if significant developments alter the assumptions on which they were approved.

Seven claimants brought claims against Associated Newspapers Limited alleging misuse of private information and, in the first claimant’s case, breach of confidence. The claims were being case managed and tried together. At a two-day costs and case management hearing, the court considered the parties’ budgets, which together proposed expenditure of more than £38.8 million.

The court had already given directions concerning the future conduct of the litigation and required revised budgets distinguishing individual and common costs. The central issues were whether a costs-sharing provision could be incorporated into the case-management order without a group litigation order, and what sums fell within a reasonable and proportionate range for each remaining phase.

1. Costs-sharing mechanism. The court had broad powers under CPR 44.2 and its general case-management powers under CPR 3.1. The effect of CPR 46.6 could therefore be imported into the case-management order, notwithstanding that no group litigation order had been made. A costs-sharing provision was appropriate because the claims contained substantial generic issues and overlap between the individual cases.
2. Costs-management task. Under CPR 3.15(1), the court was required to record agreed costs and approve or revise disputed budgeted costs. It was not conducting a detailed assessment in advance. Under CPR 44.3(5), proportionality required regard to the sums in issue, non-monetary relief, complexity, additional work caused by the paying party, wider factors such as reputation or public importance, and vulnerability. Reasonableness was assessed by reference to CPR 44.4(2). The court should stand back and assess the overall picture.
3. The claims were high-profile but the central issues were relatively straightforward factual questions. The parties’ substantial experience in similar litigation, duplication between solicitors and counsel, excessive contingencies, high hourly rates and inadequate delegation justified substantial reductions. Witness statements should generally be drafted initially by lower-grade fee earners, subject to case-sensitive supervision.
4. In assessing trial-preparation budgets, the court could approve a single phase figure without fixing counsel’s individual brief fees or dictating the composition of the legal team. It nevertheless had regard to the hypothetical reasonably competent counsel contemplated in Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation (No.2) [1965] 1 WLR 112.
5. Although the claims were not immediate candidates for mediation, ADR was not excluded. The court allowed a conditional ADR budget, with no recourse to it if no ADR took place. Total budgeted costs were approved at £4,084,000 for the claimants and £4,445,000 for the defendant.

First-instance costs-management decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.