The court expressed concern at the costs being incurred in defamation cases after the introduction of conditional fee agreements. Additional elements in an abuse of process case may include the ability of the claimant to pursue a claim at no risk in costs, the exposure of the defendant win or lose to a costs burden and the consequent ‘chilling effect’ upon the defendant’s freedom of expression.
Held: The three circumstances combined to give rise to a real unfairness to the defendants if the action were to proceed.
Judges:
Gray J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 2442 (QB), [2004] EMLR 19
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .
Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.198171