CLARKE V GUARDIAN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2025] EWHC 2575 (KB)

Описание: Dishonest Evidence And Baseless Allegations Justify Indemnity Costs Order

In Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd, Mrs Justice Steyn determined consequential costs issues following her judgment of 22 August 2025 dismissing Mr Clarke's defamation and data protection claims. Applying the general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a), she ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs, as the defendant was the resoundingly successful party. The court then addressed several reserved costs orders concerning an interim non-disclosure application and an amendment and joinder application. Citing Practice Direction 44, the judge made no further order, meaning these reserved costs fell to be treated as costs in the case, payable by the claimant. On the basis of assessment, the court departed from the standard basis, ordering indemnity costs pursuant to CPR 44.3. This was justified by the claimant's unreasonable conduct, including advancing a dishonest case and making baseless allegations of conspiracy and dishonesty against witnesses, consistent with the principle in Esure Services Limited v Quarcoo. Finally, applying CPR 44.2(8) and following Bank St Petersburg PJSC v Arkhangelsky, the court ordered a £3 million payment on account of costs, finding it a reasonable sum and rejecting the claimant's inability to pay as a good reason to refuse. The application to extend time for an appeal and for a stay of the costs order was refused.

#IndemnityCosts #PaymentOnAccount #CostsReserved #CostsOrder #CostsAssessment #CostsLaw #LegalCosts #CostsLawyer #DetailedAssessment #CostsBudgeting #CPRCosts #CostsLitigation #LitigationCosts #UKCostsLaw #CostsDraftsman