Full case report

Peacock v MGN Ltd (Costs)

Reference [2010] EWHC 90174 (Costs)
Court Senior Courts Costs Office

Judge Master Campbell, Costs Judge

Date of Judgment 30 Jul 2010


Summary

Defamation – Libel –  Costs – Conditional fee agreement – Staged success fee – Whether amount of success fee sought reasonable – Proportionality – Whether overall fees claimed reasonable


Facts

C sued D over allegations made in an interview by Jodie Marsh, his former wife, published in ‘Celebs on Sunday’, a colour supplement published by D and sold with editions of the Sunday Mirror newspaper. Efforts were made to settle the matter before issuing of proceedings, but were unsuccessful. Proceedings were issued on 2 September 2008. C’s lawyers were funded on a conditional fee agreement with staged success fee. There was also an insurance policy. A defence was served on 24 October 2008. In April 2009 applications came before Eady J. C applied to strike out parts of the Defence. D applied for a costs capping order. Both applications failed. The parties proceeded towards trial before settlement was reached with D agreeing to pay C £15,000 in damages; undertaking not to repeat the allegations; and C be permitted to read a statement in open court. D also agreed to pay C’s costs on the standard basis to be assessed if not agreed.

At the costs assessment D challenged the overall proportionality of the fees claimed and the amount of the success fee.


Issue

(1) Whether the overall costs were disproportionate;

(2) Whether the success fee should be reduced.


Held

(1) The fees overall – which did not, as a matter of law, include the success fee and the insurance premium – were not disproportionate. C had made early offers which D could have accepted but did not do so, instead settling much later and close to trial for more than C had originally asked for. In such circumstances, the overall base costs incurred were not disproprotionate.

(2) The decision to enter into staged success fees which allowed for a 100% success fee 28 days after service of the defence was reasonable. At the time of signing the CFAs, both Solicitors and Counsel had known the stance D was going to take and the outcome would be a straightforward fight to decide whether C or Miss Marsh was telling the truth, a decision which would be determined by a jury.


Comment

The decision on proprotionality was ex tempore. D asked for reasons on the success fee issue which were handed down later. The judgment usefully sets out the law on the principles to apply when deciding the level of a success fee. With the government indicating that it will implement the Jackson Report, at least in part, how long it will remain the law is anyone’s guess.


Download this Judgment


Instructing Solicitors

Carter Ruck for C; Davenport Lyons for D