Madden & Finucane
Ranked
Number 1
by Chambers,
the clients guide
to the legal profession
Chambers and Partners have been publishing their
world-famous guides to the legal profession since 1990. The key to the success
of their legal directories and the validity of their awards is the in-depth,
unbiased research conducted by their team of highly qualified and experienced
researchers. View more
Madden & Finucane
present
the Madden & Finucane
and Pat Finucane
Aisling Awards
The Aisling Bursaries, launched in March 2000, are
an educational initiative between Belfast Media Group and West Belfast
Partnership. The Aisling Bursaries are designed to help students defray their
education and training costs.
View
more
|
|
Case Law, Northern Ireland: King v Sunday Newspapers – Privacy, Costs and the
County Court
04 July 2012 --
The case of King v Sunday Newspapers has been the subject of five judgments in
the Courts in Northern Ireland. In the latest, and apparently, last chapter in this long saga, the Court
of Appeal has overturned the first instance judge’s ruling on costs, holding
that because of the “complexity and novelty of the litigation” costs should be
awarded on the High Court scale.
The plaintiff was a former loyalist murder suspect. The case concerned the publication
of his address, his picture, family details and the religion of his children by
the “Sunday World” newspaper.
On 11 December 2009, Hart J granted an interim injunction restraining the
publication of information identifying the location at which the plaintiff
resided and making any reference to the child and its religion.
In an extempore judgment delivered on 22 September 2010 ([2010]) NIQB 107) by
Weatherup J dismissed the claim for harassment but allowed the claim for misuse
of private information in part. We
had a discussion of the judgment at the time.
The appeal in relation to misuse of private information was allowed in part 31
March 2011 ([2011] NICA 8). On 16 September 2011 Weatherup J assessed damages in
the sum of £1,000 ([2011] NIQB 101).
On 2 December 2011 the same judge gave a ruling in relation to the costs of the
action ([2011] NIQB 126). He held
that, as the damages awarded were within the County Court limit costs should be
awarded on the County Court scale – solicitors fees at £2,299 and counsel’s fees
at £809. The plaintiff appealed
against the order concerning the scale on which costs should be assessed.
In a judgment handed down on 29 June 2012 ([2012] NICA) the Northern Ireland
Court of Appeal (Higgins, Girvan and Coghlin LJJ) noted that the the case
“raised a number of complex and novel issues in relation to privacy law” [13]. The case was the first Northern
Ireland authority on the balancing of Article 8 and Article 10. The appellant relied heavily on the
fact that English privacy litigation is “routinely conducted at the High Court
level notwithstanding the modest awards of damages” [16] but they did not
consider this to be determinative of the issue.
Overall, the Court of Appeal concluded that
“because of the complexity and novelty of the issues raised in the litigation we
conclude that there was a special cause to award costs on the High Court scale”
[17]
As a result, the appeal was allowed.
This case draws attention to a procedural issue which has not been explored in
the English case law: to what extent are privacy cases suitable for trial in the
High Court? English privacy cases
are almost always brought in the High Court – despite the the relatively low
levels of damages which have, until recently been awarded. The issue has been live in Northern
Ireland because of the low “scale costs” awarded in the County Court – which
makes it an attractive forum for defendants sued by legally aided plaintiffs – defendants risk being ordered to
pay costs but, if successful cannot recover them from plaintiffs. In McGaughey v
Sunday Newspapers Ltd ([2011] NICA 51) the Court of Appeal upheld an order
remitting a privacy action to the County Court.
One reason for media related privacy actions to be heard in the
High Court is the need for experienced judges to deal with what may be difficult
“balancing” exercises which affect the rights of the general public. Furthermore, case law is complex and
continues to evolve. Finally, it should
be noted that, in contrast to the position in Northern Ireland, the damages
awarded in privacy cases have often been substantial (see, for example, Cooper v
Turrell ([2011] EWHC 3269 (QB) and see our case comment). All these factors suggest that it is
unlikely that privacy cases will, in the near future, be regarded in England as
more appropriately dealt with in the County Court.
|
|
more..
|
|
|