Hugh Grant Settles Unlawful Information Gathering Claim

In a previous blog, the case being brought by the actor, Hugh Grant, against News Group Newspapers was discussed, see here.

The hearing reported on in that blog decided that Mr Grant’s claim in respect of telephone hacking was statute barred but that he was permitted to proceed with the other accusations he made, which included landline tapping, obtaining information by deception, bugging his home and car, burglary and hiring private investigators.

It is reported that Mr Grant has now accepted an ‘enormous amount of money’ to settle the dispute. It is however fair to say from the interviews Mr Grant gave after accepting the settlement that he did so reluctantly and purely on a commercial basis, stating that he would like nothing more than to see the matters that the defendant denies tested in Court at a trial.

Whilst the detail is not publicly available, Mr Grant describes a scenario where he has had to accept the offer or risk being ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of trial, which could be as much as £10m. From this, the writer of this blog surmises that the offer made was in accordance with Part 36 of the Court rules.

Part 36 offers to settle

Part 36 sets out a mechanism that is designed to encourage parties to reach an agreement by shifting/increasing the risk of pursuing the claim beyond the offer. A claimant or a defendant can make an offer in accordance with Part 36, provided the terms of the offer contain all of the prescribed ingredients to qualify the offer as a Part 36 offer, if the receiving party fails to accept the offer or beat the offer at trial the Court will award additional sums to the maker of the offer. Where the offer was made by a claimant, if the claimant beats the offer made at trial, the Court will order that the Defendant pay, in addition to the judgment sum:

Where a defendant makes a Part 36 offer, the above criteria could not be effective as a defendant will not attain an award of damages unless he has made a counterclaim. Part 36 therefore prescribes that a defendant that has made an offer in accordance with that rule that the claimant fails to beat at trial shall be entitled to his costs and interest on those costs from the date that the offer should have been accepted. Whether the offer was made by the claimant or the defendant, the Court can only apply the Part 36 sanctions where it is just to do so.

Whilst a £10m costs bill for a trial seems excessive, Mr Grant has been open in stating that the defendant’s lawyers that have been engaged are exceptionally expensive, hence the estimate of an enormous costs liability. Part 36 when used in this context (i.e. where a defendant is seeking to avoid a finding of fact at a trial that could lead to criminal charges being brought) can be an effective tool in shielding a defendant. Mr Grant’s acceptance of the offer has however not prevented him from making the fact that he would like to see some prosecutions follow known in the media/online.