REASONABLE COSTS WERE PROPORTIONATE: MORE THAN MONEY AT STAKE – COSTS NOT REDUCED
In Various Claimants (In Wave 2 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd EWHC B19 Master Saker had to consider the issue of proportionality of costs directly, and held that – on the facts of that case – proportionality made no difference to the reasonable costs that had been agreed.
The parties had resolved the issue of damages in the “phone hacking” case. The only issue in dispute was the effect of the proportionality test on some of the claimants’ costs.
THE AGREED REASONABLE COSTS COMPARED TO THE DEFENDANT’S OFFER FOR PROPORTIONATE COSTS
|Agreed reasonable Individual base costs,
|Agreed Common base costs, (excl VAT)||Defendant’s offer for Proportionate Base Costs, (excl VAT)
|Jayne Claire Walton/King||40,000||20,413||7,716||14,000|
The Master set out the test in CPR 44.3
The post 2013 test of proportionality is provided by rule 44.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998: