温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/peacock-v-mgn-ltd
点击访问原文链接

Peacock v MGN Ltd - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Peacock v MGN Ltd - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Peacock v MGN Ltd Reference: [2009] EWHC 769 (QB)

Court: Queen's Bench Division

Judge: Eady J

Date of judgment: 8 Apr 2009 Summary: Defamation – Libel – Costs capping order – Conditional fee agreement – After the event insurance – New costs capping rules - Whether a costs cap should be ordered

Download: Download this judgment

Appearances: Adam Wolanski KC (Defendant)  Adam Speker KC (Claimant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Carter-Ruck for the Claimant; Davenport Lyons for the Defendant

Facts The Claimant sued for libel in respect of allegations of domestic violence made by his former wife in an article in the Defendant’s newspaper. His case was funded under a CFA with ATE insurance. The Defendant applied for an order that there be a costs cap which would exclude provision for the cost of instructing leading counsel at any stage. The Defendant argued that unless the costs were capped there was a realistic possibility that, if it lost at trial, it would be faced with a costs liability (not including its own costs) of around £800,000 taking into account CFA uplift, ATE premiums and VAT. The Claimant opposed the application on the basis that new rules relating to cost capping applied and there were no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify making an order.

Issue (1) Was there a risk of extravagance or disproportionate escalation of costs on the part of the Claimant?
(2) Could that risk effectively be countered by ordinary case management decisions?
(3) Could that risk effectively be countered by the retrospective process of detailed costs assessment?

Held Dismissing the application for a costs cap:
(1) There was a risk of extravagance or disproportionate escalation of costs. This conclusion was reached by reference to the matter of the hourly rates charged by the Claimant’s solicitors and the proposal to instruct leading counsel. For the Defendant to find itself facing a liability for total costs of over £1 million case would be manifestly absurd given the straightforward facts in issue and the potential level of damages the Claimant might recover.
(2) There was no scope for controlling the risk of incurring disproportionate costs by case management directions or orders.
(3) There were no exceptional circumstances in this case and the issues of the reasonableness or otherwise of city hourly rates and of instructing leading counsel could be adequately addressed retrospectively on detailed assessment.

Comment This is the first case to address the new rules on cost capping which came into force on 6 April 2009. The judge made clear that, were it not for the new rules, he would have been strongly inclined to order a costs cap and specifically would have excluded the costs of instructing leading counsel. He referred to the government’s consultation paper on controlling costs in defamation cases, which proposes changes to the new rules in defamation cases including the mandatory application of costs caps, and said that we are moving inexorably towards some form of restriction on the costs incurred in libel cases.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录