Given the reasons given in the Judgment for disallowing the budgeted costs and the figures, I believe the lawyers submitting the precedent H have a lot to answer for. Presumably, the precedent H were signed by very experienced litigation lawyers who would hardly dream of giving the profession a bad name.
Anon @ 1.14pm So because they are rich and it happened a long time ago they shouldn't be given legal redress? I can only speak for myself but I don't want a persons access to justice dependent on their bank balance or whether there has been a delay in bringing the claim, and on the latter point the reason why this took so long was because Associated Newspapers along with the other media giants repeatedly lied that they hadn't taken part in phone hacking etc, so your suggested remedy would have the perverse result of benefiting the party who has deliberately obfuscated and delayed the legal claims.
A significant way to hit a malicious and scurrilous media organisation such as Associated Newspapers is in their pocket. That’s what makes their eyes water and (may) make them pause before inflicting great harm on other individuals and society. To suggest an apology is sufficient is to miss the point by many, many miles. There MUST now be a serious criminal enquiry into the ownership, managerial and editorial staff going back to their testimony and (lack of) proper discovery at Leveson One. Cell doors need to slam to seriously discourage the various others.
These costs and the amount of court time being spent on these cases are an obscenity. These claimants don't need money, they might just warrant an apology. I am sick to death of them all parading their wealth for all to see adn whining about something that happened years ago when others can't get a court date for something actually serious and life changing. Yes, if their privacy was indeed breached, that was awful but it was years ago now and giving them money won't change anything. A full public apology and a healthy donation to their chosen charities would surely be more appropriate now. Enough already!
In answer to Jim, no. It would mean taking on big boys (and girls). The SRA has shown a tendency to whack much smaller firms over process matters like websites and AML 'failings', even historic ones.
So, don't expect the SRA to go anywhere near this.
Which is precisely why the Justice Secretary could be assessing the SRA's fitness for purpose.
After all, for most clients, costs is very much the sharp end.
The article and earlier comment (i.e. “So total budgets claimed £38.8million actual total budget figures allowed by Judge/Senior Master £8,529,000.00”) appear to misunderstand the costs management process and tend to paint a slightly misleading picture.
The Court was concerned only with budgeted (i..e. estimated) future costs (although it did, expressly and quite properly, have regard to costs already incurred when setting future boundaries) and so the correct figures to be reflected upon are:
Claimants’ budgeted costs: claimed £14,634,647 / allowed £4,084,000.
Defendant’s budgeted costs: claimed £11,724,902 / allowed £4,445,000.
Of course, each side had also already incurred costs of £4,074,113 and £8,125,379 respectively and, on any reading, the total sums spent and to be spent (both as set out in the budgets and even, still, as approved by the Court) are truly eye-watering and seemingly uber disproportionate.
It may be splitting hairs to a degree but the comment that £38.8m was reduced to ~£8.5m is therefore inaccurate - but reducing ~£26.3m to ~£8.5m is still worthy of anxious reflection.
Finally, I fail to see what the SRA might investigate here: the parties may spend what they like on legal fees but must expect to recover (much) less from the other side if successful (see paragraph 2 of the judgment) and so, absent any specific and wilful overcharging that might later be identified, of course, there appears to be nothing to investigate.
The statement of truth which is signed pre lodging the Form H budgets states
"This budget is a fair and accurate statement of incurred and estimated costs which it would be responsible and proportionate for my client to incur in this Litigation"
So total budgets claimed £38.8million actual total budget figures allowed by Judge/Senior Master £8,529,000.00.
Just one specific exmple the estimate costs of the estimated 45 day trial.
Claimant claimed £3.08million, Defendant offer £2.46 million- Defandant claimed £2.476 million, Claimant offer £1.6milliom - Court stated- We not accept it is necessary for each Claimant to have their entire legal team to be present for every day of the trial. Order £1.1m for both !
Will the SRA investigate these figures?
Having practiced non-contentious work, I find it difficult to understand when costs are so off the mark, why no SRA sanctions follow. At what point would conspiracy to defraud be countenanced?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report comment