While much of the media attention around Paisley v Linehan has focused on satire, politics, and the right to free speech, one of the most important and practical parts of the judgment was the Court’s decision on legal costs.
In the realm of defamation litigation—especially when it comes to high-profile political figures and controversial public commentators—the question of who pays can often be as impactful as the ruling itself.
The Court had previously dealt with the meaning of the words complained of and whether they were defamatory at a previous hearing. A separate hearing was then listed to rule on the costs that had been incurred to date.
How the Court approached costs
Mrs Justice Steyn gave a detailed and reasoned costs judgment that turned on two core considerations:
- Were there defects in the Claimant’s pleadings?
- Was it reasonable to raise the issues that were litigated?
There was no dispute that the first hearing was not concluded as fully as it should have been because of defects in the Claimant’s pleaded case. The Claimant’s barrister attempted to explain this away as claiming that it was not the cause for the first hearing being adjourned. The judge, however, ultimately found that the burden was on the Claimant to determine what statements he wanted the Court to make a determination on and, given that he had to replead his case and this resulted in a second hearing, there was significant fault on the part of the Claimant.
The judge, however, also found that the Defendant was not without fault: he determined that the Defendant had only challenged the Claimant in respect of the pleaded case shortly before the first hearing.
With the above in mind, the Claimant was ordered to pay 50% of the Defendant’s costs, notwithstanding the Claimant having established that a number of the statements had defamatory meanings.
A cautionary tale for litigants
The cost decision in this case offers some important insights:
- Even preliminary hearings can result in substantial cost liabilities—especially in defamation cases, where stakes are reputational as well as financial.
- The cost decision would invariably have been different if the case had been pleaded properly at the outset.
Comment
This case highlights the importance of seeking professional specialised legal advice before issuing proceedings in respect of a defamation claim. The pleading of a claim such as this is highly technical, and inadequate pleadings can have serious cost consequences even if you are successful in your claim.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us