Miller (Respondent) v Associated Newspapers Limited (Appellant)
Case ID: UKSC 2016/0060
Whether costs orders made in defamation proceedings requiring the appellant to pay the respondent's success fees and after-the-event insurance premium are incompatible with the appellant's rights under Article 10 ECHR.
A newspaper published by the appellant printed an article about the respondent and his business dealings. The respondent commenced defamation proceedings in respect of that article and succeeded at trial, securing an award of £65,000 in damages. The appellant's appeal was unsuccessful.
The respondentis base costs of trial and the appeal were agreed at £633,006.08 and paid by the appellant. But there was a dispute as to the appellant's additional liability for costs. In particular, orders were made that the appellant should pay success fees owing to the respondent's solicitors and counsel, and the premium on the respondent's after-the-event ("ATE") insurance policy (a total additional liability of £835,379.60). The appellant contends that these costs orders are incompatible with its right to free speech under Article 10 ECHR. On a hearing of the issue, the High Court found for the respondent but granted a leapfrog certificate under s.12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969. The appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Associated Newspapers Limited
Andrew James Miller
Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
Hearing start date
24 Jan 2017
Hearing finish date
26 Jan 2017
|24 Jan 2017||Morning session||Afternoon session|
|25 Jan 2017||Morning session||Afternoon session|
|26 Jan 2017||Morning session||Afternoon session|