TMC LEGAL | BARONESS LAWRENCE & ORS v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB)

Описание: Where multiple claimants pursue interconnected claims relying on common allegations, the court may order joint and several liability for adverse common costs—even absent a Group Litigation Order—requiring claimants to reassess their ATE cover before incurring substantial trial preparation costs.

Senior Master Cook and Nicklin J rule that co-claimants pursuing a collective litigation strategy based on common allegations are jointly and severally liable for the defendant's common costs, even without a formal Group Litigation Order. A landmark clarification of the Stumm v Dixon principle for multi-party claims.

🔑 Key Points
Co-claimants in collective litigation face joint and several liability for common costs
Individual costs remain the several liability of each claimant
Court may determine costs liability at case management stage, not just at trial conclusion
Budget variations require demonstration of a "significant development"
Server/archive maintenance costs can be recoverable litigation costs under CPR 44.1

📋 Case Summary
Case: Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd
Citation: [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB)
Court: King's Bench Division, High Court
Judges: Senior Master Cook & Mr Justice Nicklin
Core Holding: Stumm v Dixon principle applies – co-claimants jointly and severally liable for common costs

⚖️ Why This Matters
This decision provides essential clarity for costs practitioners advising claimants in multi-party litigation. Where claimants combine to present a collective case based on common allegations, each faces exposure to the full common costs liability if co-claimants cannot pay. ATE insurance must be arranged accordingly.

🎯 What The Court Decided
Granted defendant's application for prospective costs liability order
Co-claimants jointly and severally liable for Common Costs
Co-claimants severally liable for Individual Costs
Budget variations approved at reduced figures for both parties
Legacy server costs (£357,919) held to be recoverable litigation costs

📚 Topics Covered
Joint and several liability for costs
Common costs vs individual costs distinction
Stumm v Dixon principle in modern litigation
CPR 3.15A budget variations
Significant developments test
Recoverable litigation costs under CPR 44.1
ATE insurance implications

👨‍⚖️ Judges
The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin | Senior Master Cook

💼 Useful For
Costs Lawyers | Costs Draftsmen | Solicitors | Barristers | ATE Insurers | Litigation Funders | Group Action Practitioners

🔗 Links
📖 Read the full blog post: https://www.tmclegal.co.uk/joint-seve...
⚖️ Judgment on BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...

📞 Contact TMC Legal
🌐 www.tmclegal.co.uk
📧 [email protected]
📞 01628 526 236

🔔 SUBSCRIBE for regular updates on costs law, civil litigation, and CPR developments

📌 Related Cases
Stumm v Dixon (1889) 22 QBD 529
Rowe v Ingenious Media Holdings plc [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch)
Dufoo v Tolaini / Re Quiet Moments Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1536
London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley [1884] 13 QB 872

Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

© 2025 TMC Legal Limited

#CostsLaw #JointAndSeveralLiability #CommonCosts #CPR3 #MultiPartyLitigation #GroupLitigation #StummvDixon #CostsManagement #CostsBudgeting #LegalCosts #CivilLitigation #UKLaw #SolicitorsCosts #CostsLawyer #ATEInsurance #BaronessLawrence #HighCourt #KingsBench