0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

King v Telegraph Group Limited, Court of Appeal, 18 May 2004

27 May 2004
The issues

Conditional Fee Agreements – Costs – Libel – Costs Capping Order

The facts

The Telegraph Group was a Defendant in libel proceedings brought by Adam Musa King. A number of interlocutory orders had been made by the High Court Judge in June 2003 against which the Defendant appealed. One of the appealed Orders was the Judge’s decision to refuse the Defendant’s Application for a Costs Capping Order. The Defendant sought an Order capping the Claimant’s costs where the Claimant brought proceedings under a Conditional Fee Agreement for libel and without after the event insurance and where the Defendant was a substantial risk as to increasing costs.

The decision

1. It would be inappropriate for an Appellant Court to impose a novel Order which the Judge had not seen fit to make in the absence of any error on the part of the Judge.

2. However, guidance should be given as to future cases to deal with what was an obvious unfairness to Defendants in libel having to pay high costs even if successful. There were three weapons available to a party which was concerned about the other side’s conduct and costs being run up: – a costs capping Order; detailed assessment; a wasted costs Order.

3. The Court had jurisdiction to impose a costs capping order in an appropriate case under Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and CPR Rule 3.1(2) (m). Recourse to a costs capping order should be the Court’s first response when a concern was raised by a Defendant.

4. If the defamation proceedings were begun under a CFA without after the event cover, a Master should at allocation stage make an Order analagous to an Order under Section 65 (1) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Court should prescribe a total amount of recoverable costs which would be inclusive of any additional liability as far as a CFA funded party was concerned. If the introduction of this costs capping regime meant that Claimant lawyers might be reluctant to accept instructions on a CFA basis unless they assess the chances of success as significantly greater than evens that was a small price to pay compared to the cost of allowing the present state of affairs to continue.


In the future if a Claimant’s solicitor agreed to act on a CFA without after the event cover in a defamation action, they would have to bear in mind from the time they were first instructed the requirement to assess the likely value of the claim, its importance and complexity and the necessary working expense appropriate to each stage up to Trial.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up