In defamation proceedings the defendant had invited one issue to be left to the jury. After losing the case, the defendant sought to appeal, arguing that the jury’s verdict was perverse. It was held that such an appeal amounted to an abuse of process, and if allowed, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The issue was central to the judgment. The admission that the issue was referred to the jury by the defendant’s mistake, because there was only one proper verdict, but that could not allow the reversal of an express request to the judge to put that issue to the jury.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘The purpose for which the power to order the payment of costs on an indemnity basis is conferred, as it seems to me, is to enable the court, in a case to which CPR 36.21 applies, to address the element of perceived unfairness which arises from the fact that an award of costs on the standard basis will, almost invariably, lead to the successful claimant recovering less than the costs which he has to pay to his solicitor.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Longmore
Citations:
Times 19-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 933, [2001] 4 All ER 861, [2002] CP Rep 9, [2002] 1 WLR 934, [2001] EMLR 35, [2001] 2 Costs LR 295
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999
The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 7-Jun-2000
The new civil procedure rules did not change the basic rules of evidence. The old rule prevented a party putting in evidence a witness statement which he knew conflicted substantially with the case he wished to place before the jury, and then be . .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 12-Jun-2001
. .
Cited by:
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 4) CA 3-Jul-2001
The fact that a defendant had not acted unreasonably in pursuing a case after an offer of settlement, was not a reason for not awarding costs to be paid on an indemnity basis. Such an award had no penal element, and did not first require any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Costs
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.83584
