Cases

Phillipps v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Another

Held

(1) Permission was granted to the Claimant to make a unilateral statement in Open Court. The remaining objections of the Defendants to the wording were rejected by the Judge. The sum in damages accepted by the Claimant was well above any level which could be characterised as nominal; Church of Scientology v Borth News (1973) 117 Sol Jo 566 and Barnet v Crozier [1987] 1 WLR 272 considered. (2) The Claimant was entitled to her costs of the application. The Court had a discretion as to Costs notwithstanding the wording of CPR 36.13, as CPR 53 PD 6.2 envisaged the possibility of a further application being made even after acceptance of a Part 36 Payment into Court. Any such application was required to be made under CPR Part 23 and the Court would have a discretion over the costs of any such application in the usual way. (3) The incidental costs of applying for and making a statement in open court after acceptance of a Part 36 Payment into Court were costs of the action.

Also