BNM -v- MGN: A DECISION OF LIMITED PROPORTION
The Court of Appeal decision in BNM v MGN Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1767 has relatively limited impact. In particular it says little, if anything, about the proportionality itself. 
THE CASE
The Court of Appeal were deciding an appeal following an assessment of costs:-
-
…whether the former proportionality test in the old CPR 44.4(2) or the new proportionality test in the current CPR 44.3(2) and (5) applies on a standard basis of assessment to a pre-commencement funding arrangement as defined in the current CPR 48.
-
Expressed in less technical language and directed more specifically to the facts of the present proceedings, which are privacy proceedings, the issue is whether the success fee payable under conditional fee agreements between the claimant (who is the appellant) (“BNM”) and her solicitors and between her solicitors and her barristers, and the premiums payable under an after the event (“ATE”) insurance policy taken out by BNM, are subject to the old or the new proportionality rules under the Civil Procedure Rules on an assessment of her costs on the standard basis.
THE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE
The Court of Appeal held that the “old”proportionality test applied to the success fees and ATE premiums. The Master of the Rolls stating:-
-
“I would allow the appeal on the ground that the assessment should have been conducted on the footing that the proportionality test in the old CPR 44.4(2), and the relevant provisions in the old Costs Practice Direction, applied to the success fees and the ATE insurance premiums.”
ANOTHER ISSUE
The Court of Appeal remitted to the costs judge the question of whether it was reasonable to issue proceedings without notice.
These cases are like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
Quarter of a million quid costs claimed for some crappy little claim like this? It’s utterly insane. And £20k damages for some minor annoyance? How does that compare with the physical injuries that would have to be sustained to get £20k?
Why are senior judges, who are desperately needed to try real cases, even allowed to waste their time on this sort of trivia?
These vain and silly claimants, most of whom are only too happy about publicity when it suits them, should get a fixed sum of £1,000 and small claims costs only.