This case never ceases to surprise me! The judge recently awarded Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Mail, indemnity costs against the 7 claimants in the hacking case. Their legal team has put in a bill for £34 million. Words fail me. Even the judge who was wholly supportive of the newspaper publisher’s case was open mouthed. It is very unlikely that, even with an order for indemnity costs, the defendant will get anywhere near that but even so. I could understand that level of fees for a very long and complex commercial case but a defamation case with little law and uncomplicated factual matrix-no ! Someone is having a laugh.
There remain some troubling questions about this case:
-
Why did the claimants carry on when their key witness lost all credibility
-
The role of Hacked Off in bringing the case.
-
Did the poorer claimants have an indemnity from the wealthier.
-
The advice given by the claimant legal team to their clients and to the ATE insurers.
-
In other words, was the case driven by the clients or the lawyers.
We may never know the answer to these questions, but I strongly suspect that there will be satellite litigation going on for several years yet during which the answers may emerge.