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 condemnation of the plaintiff. Nor was it wrong to award interest on the costs. The purpose of the rule was to correct the perceived injustice of the general rule against awarding interest on costs in defamation cases. The general rule that interest is not awarded on damages costs is because the assessment of damages by the jury is intended to reflect the damage to reputation up to the date of the award.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘When dismissing the principal appeal, we left over for decision whether The Times should pay the respondent’s costs of that appeal on a standard or an indemnity basis. Clearly rather more of a stigma attaches to an indemnity costs order made in this context than in the context of a rule 36.21 offer – although even then no moral condemnation of the appellant’s lawyers is necessarily implied. .’
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR
Citations:
Times 03-Jul-2001, [2001] EMLR 858
Statutes:
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 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 Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and others CA 12-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3) CA 12-Jun-2001
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 . .
Cited by:
See also – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd; Liam Clarke and and Andrew Neil (No 3) CA 12-Jun-2001
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 . .
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 (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 Limited; Clarke and Neil (1) CA 25-Nov-1998
. .
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Defamation
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.83582