Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

In multi-party litigation, the court may order claimants to be jointly and severally liable for the defendant’s Common Costs where they combine to advance a collective case, while retaining several liability for costs particular to each claimant. Such an order may be made before the conclusion of proceedings where early clarity is important. A budget may be varied under CPR 3.15A only where a significant development warrants revision and the additional costs are confined to, and attributable to, that development. The court retains discretion over the amount approved and is not bound by the parties’ offers. Litigation-specific expenditure may be recoverable where it is incurred solely because of the litigation.

Seven claimants brought six related claims against Associated Newspapers Limited. The claims were issued separately, were not consolidated, and were case managed together for a proposed combined trial. They included substantial similar-fact and generic allegations, alongside issues particular to each claimant.

At a fourth case management conference, the court determined the defendant’s application concerning liability for adverse Common Costs. It also determined applications by both parties to vary four phases of their approved costs budgets. The central issues were whether Common Costs should be recoverable jointly and severally or severally, whether the costs-liability order should be made before trial, and whether the budget variations satisfied CPR 3.15A.

1. Costs liability. The court had jurisdiction under CPR 3.1 and its broad costs discretion under CPR 44.2 to make the requested order. Although the claims were technically separate, the claimants had effectively combined to present claims founded substantially on common allegations. Each claimant relied on the Similar Fact and Generic cases, and each individual case was said to cross-support the others. The Common Costs were therefore to be shared jointly and severally, while costs directly referrable to matters particular and personal to an individual claimant remained several.
2. The order was properly made before the end of the proceedings. The ordinary practice of determining costs at the conclusion of a case did not prevent an earlier order where clarity was important, substantial costs had already been incurred, trial preparation was approaching, and the claimants might need to reassess their ATE insurance. The order did not prevent a later departure if circumstances justified it.
3. Budget variations. CPR 3.15A required a significant development, prompt revision, and additional costs confined to and attributable to that development. The court approved further sums for the additional CMC, amended pleadings and replies, limited disclosure work, preservation of a litigation-specific legacy email archive, and increased witness-statement work. It reduced or disallowed sums that exceeded reasonable and proportionate costs or related to deficiencies for which the applying party was responsible.
4. The court was not bound by offers made during negotiations. It retained a complete discretion over the amount approved. The November 2024 case-management order was to be amended to record a proper costs-management order under CPR 3.15(2).

This was a first-instance decision on costs liability and costs-budget variations at a case management conference. No appeal is stated in the judgment.