Source: http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-times-newspapers-ltd-v-flood-frost-miller-v-associated-newspapers-ltd/
Timestamp: 2019-12-11 06:21:20
Document Index: 222227812

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 10', 'art 10', 'UKHL ', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'art 10', 'UKSC ', 'art 10']

Case Preview: Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood & 2 or cases – UKSCBlog
Case Preview: Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood & 2 or cases
Aidan Wills, Matrix Case Previews
The Supreme Court is currently hearing three joined appeals brought by media organisations challenging the ECHR compatibility of the recoverability of conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees/uplift and after the event (ATE) insurance premiums (“additional liabilities”) in libel and privacy claims.
The media organisations contend that the scheme permitting courts to order the recovery of additional liabilities (under the Access to Justice Act 1999 and relevant provisions of the CPR and Costs Practice Direction) amounts to a disproportionate interference with their rights under ECHR, art 10.
Miller v Associated Newspapers arises from a successful defamation claim brought in respect of an article published in the Daily Mail. Sharp J awarded £65,000 in damages. Base costs were compromised at £633k. Associated disputed their liability to pay any part of the success fees or ATE premium on the basis that this amounted to a violation of its rights under ECHR, art 10. On the recovery of success fees, Mr Justice Mitting accepted that there was a stark conflict between the ratio of House of Lords’ judgment in Campbell v MGN Ltd (No 2) [2005] UKHL 61 and MGN v UK, the ruling of the Strasbourg Court in the same case. But the judge considered himself bound to follow the decision of the House of Lords. As to the ATE premium, Mitting J held that it was compatible with article 10 on the basis that the burden imposed by the ATE premium scheme on defendant publishers is not so large or so lacking in appropriate controls so as to amount to a disproportionate interference.
Whether the recoverability of CFA success fees and/or ATE insurance premiums is a proportionate interference with the art 10 rights of the appellants and, by extension, media organisations generally.
If one or both regimes is found to be incompatible with art 10, what is the appropriate remedy? In particular, should the relevant provisions be read down or disapplied so as to ensure compatibility, or should no such action be taken on the basis that the respondents, their lawyers and insurers had a legitimate expectation that additional liabilities would be recoverable and that that position would not be altered retrospectively?
The judgment may also be significant in the context of the ongoing debate on whether or not the Crime and Courts Act 2013, s 40 should be brought into force. Some responses to the government consultation have criticised s 40 (3) as being incompatible with art 10 for the same reasons advanced by the appellants challenging the CFA/ATE regime. Should the UKSC hold that the imposition of additional costs liabilities is incompatible with art 10, it is difficult to see how section 40 (3), whose costs implications are more severe, would survive a similar challenge (were it to be in force).
I will be writing a more detailed post once the Supreme Court has handed down its judgment.
Leave a reply on "Case Preview: Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood & 2 or cases"