Select Page

Court Approves Trial Budgets for High-Profile Claimants vs. Associated Newspapers

Before:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN

SENIOR MASTER COOK

Between:

(1) BARONESS LAWRENCE OF CLARENDON OBE

(2) ELIZABETH HURLEY

(3) SIR ELTON JOHN CH CBE

(4) DAVID FURNISH

(5) SIR SIMON HUGHES

(6) PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX

(7) SADIE FROST

Claimants

– and –

ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

Defendant

Costs Management and Budgeting

In November, the court approved costs budgets for the highly publicized legal battle between the Claimants and Associated Newspapers Limited as follows:

1. Trial Costs

• The Claimants sought £3,098,649.88, while the Defendant proposed £2,462,509.88. Conversely, the Defendant sought £2,476,380, and the Claimants offered £1,621,425.

• Both parties agreed that the anticipated trial length would be 45 days. This key assumption has been recorded in the costs management order.

2. Legal Team Attendance

• The court determined that it was unnecessary for each Claimant to have their entire legal team present daily throughout the trial. Instead, a reasonable allowance was made for attendance based on a division of responsibilities between generic and specific issues.

• Notably, the use of a transcriber has been agreed upon, ensuring transcripts of the proceedings will be available to the wider legal teams.

• Accordingly, the court allowed:

45 days of attendance for fee earners.

44 refreshers for counsel.

• Equal resources are expected to be deployed by both parties, with £1,100,000 allocated for trial attendance costs for each side.

3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• The Claimants claimed £216,669.02 for ADR costs, while the Defendant offered nothing, asserting that ADR was not feasible given the entrenched positions of the parties.

• Both the judge and counsel agreed that these claims may not seem ideal for ADR. However, it was noted that no case is inherently unsuitable for mediation. Circumstances during litigation could prompt a reassessment of positions.

• The court allowed £160,000 for ADR costs for both sides. If no ADR takes place, recourse to the budget for these costs will not be permitted.

Approved Total Costs Budgets:

• Claimants: £4,084,000

• Defendant: £4,445,000

Commentary on ADR

It is unclear why the Claimants anticipated ADR costs of £216,669.02 while the Defendants proposed no expenditure. The refusal to consider ADR in a case with potential total costs exceeding £8 million is perplexing.

Notably, recent developments demonstrate that even high-profile cases can benefit from ADR. For instance, Prince Harry recently settled a claim against Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloid publisher, News Group Newspapers (NGN). The settlement involved “substantial damages” and an apology for intrusions into his private life, including phone hacking.

NGN’s apology, which included an acknowledgment of the impact of these intrusions on Prince Harry’s late mother, Princess Diana, was described by his lawyer, David Sherborne, as “a monumental victory.” This highlights the potential for resolution even in seemingly intractable disputes.

Given the potential savings in time, cost, and emotional strain, ADR should not be dismissed lightly.