Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Re Costs Management) (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 106 (KB) (24 January 2025)
In January 2025, the High Court addressed a significant costs management issue in the ongoing privacy litigation case of Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd. The claimants, including prominent figures such as Baroness Lawrence and Prince Harry, allege misuse of private information by the defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited. The court’s focus was on scrutinizing the substantial litigation budgets proposed by both parties, emphasizing the necessity for proportionality and reasonable legal costs.
The case involves seven claimants who have brought forth allegations against Associated Newspapers Limited for breaches of privacy and misuse of private information. Given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved, the litigation has garnered significant public interest. The court conducted a costs management hearing to evaluate the proposed budgets, which collectively exceeded £38.8 million (including incurred costs). The primary legal issue was to determine a reasonable and proportionate budget for the proceedings, taking into account the complexity of the case, its public importance, and the experience of the legal teams.
The High Court, led by Mr Justice Nicklin and Senior Master Cook (Master Cook wrote the judgment), approved revised budgets for both the claimants and the defendant, significantly reducing the initially proposed costs.
After setting out the requisite background, the Judge opened with, “On the basis of these budgets the parties were proposing to spend just over £38.8 million on this litigation. The Judge and I had little difficulty concluding that such costs were manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate”.
Five core and indeed “obvious” areas were detailed as being the cause of the budgets presented ranging from large sums presented as contingencies to insufficient allowance for the practitioners’ attained expertise in this field. Of particular note is the fourth reason, “there was considerable uncertainty concerning the path of the litigation”. Everyone who has ever prepared a precedent H in respect of all save the most straight forward of Multi-Track matters will accord with this statement.
Reference was made to the case of Hammon v University College London [2024] EWHC 1744 (KB) also heard by HHJ Nicklin where the Court’s conventional powers of case management were described as “very wide indeed”.
In paragraph 24 a direct analogy was drawn between the instant cases and complex clinical negligence cases where claimant budgets rarely exceed £1,000,000.00.
At conclusion all parties’ budgets were approved in the sum of £8,529,000.00 excluding incurred costs.
The judgment underscored the importance of proportionality and transparency in legal costs, highlighting the court’s role in managing litigation efficiently. A clear timetable was set for the progression of the case, with further case management conferences scheduled to ensure continued oversight of costs.
Implications for Solicitors:
- Proportionality in Legal Costs: Solicitors must ensure that litigation budgets are proportionate to the matters at stake, especially in high-profile cases where public interest is significant.
- Transparency and Efficiency: The court’s emphasis on transparency necessitates that solicitors provide clear justifications for proposed costs, promoting efficient case management.
- Cost-Sharing Orders: In the absence of a group litigation order, the court’s approach to cost-sharing orders in managing collective claims becomes a critical consideration for solicitors handling similar cases.
- Ongoing Oversight: Solicitors should be prepared for continued judicial oversight of litigation costs, requiring adaptability and meticulous budgeting throughout the case’s progression.
- Court’s discretion: The Court enjoyed wide powers to manage cases and forward the overriding objective.
This case serves as a pertinent reminder for legal practitioners about the judiciary’s active role in scrutinizing legal costs and the necessity for solicitors to align their budgeting practices with the principles of proportionality and transparency.
How can PIC help?
PIC are highly experienced in the dark art of the compilation of precedent H costs budgets, benefiting from significant data and IT support, and employing a large team of senior costs practitioners. We will collaborate with you to craft a Precedent H that is insulated against the judicial criticism.
Rob Street, Costs Lawyer
24.04.2025