Judge Warns of Excessive Costs

Justice Nicklin described the £34.5 million claim as “excessive” and raised concerns about whether the costs were “reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.” However, he decided not to impose a ceiling on the recoverable costs, as it could lead to unfairness and be seen as arbitrary.

The judge also ruled that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) should determine its costs on an indemnity basis, which is more favorable to the publisher, unless specific orders had already been made. This decision could allow the newspaper group to recover a higher amount than under the standard basis.

Failure to Withdraw Serious Allegations

Justice Nicklin criticized the claimants for failing to withdraw serious allegations of criminality and grave impropriety during the trial. He noted that it was “striking” that not a single serious allegation was voluntarily withdrawn, which placed a burden on ANL to defend its reputation and that of its journalists.

“Serious allegations of criminality or grave impropriety cannot properly be left hanging over individuals in that way,” he said. “If a party no longer advances such an allegation, or no longer has a proper evidential basis for advancing it, the allegation should be withdrawn clearly and in terms.”

The publisher called the ruling “a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.”

Initial Bill of £9.5m and Legal Concerns

According to the London Evening Standard, the claimants were hit with an initial legal costs bill of £9.5 million from the Daily Mail. The newspaper highlighted that the claimants continued to pursue serious allegations of “abhorrent criminal activity, crimes and terrible and reprehensible covert acts” by the Mail, despite a lack of evidence.

David Bailey-Vella, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said the ruling “could not have gone much worse” for the claimants; the High Court decision disallowed the court-approved costs budget, allowing ANL to seek costs even if they exceeded initial estimates. While the costs must still be reasonably incurred and in a reasonable amount, the ruling removes the requirement for proportionality.

Former MP Sir Simon Hughes expressed disappointment with the ruling and said he was considering whether to pursue appeals; the judge’s comments about the £34 million costs claim being excessive were seen as a small positive for the claimants, according to the Evening Standard.