SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| VARIOUS CLAIMANTS
|- and -
Mr Jamie Carpenter (instructed by RPC) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 21 & 22 September 2016
Crown Copyright ©
Master Gordon-Saker :
i) Hourly rates
ii) Success fees
iii) ATE premiums
iv) The applications for relief from sanctions by Mr Yentob and Mrs Horlick.
All this means that Mr Yentob's phone was hacked at least twice a day, and often several times a day, for a substantial part of a period of about 7 years, though perhaps for not the whole of that 7 years. I expect the intensity rose as more and more people got used to the technique and its usefulness. All aspects of his personal and business life were exposed because of the nature of his use of voicemail. This is an enormous intrusion. In those terms this is a serious case. To this one adds the possibility of "farming" his other contacts, the extent of which it is impossible to determine.
- per Mann J  EWHC 1482 (Ch) para 243
Indeed, so far as I can see, there were no mitigating circumstances at all. The employees of MGN instead repeatedly engaged in disgraceful actions and ransacked the respondents' voicemail to produce in many cases demeaning articles about wholly innocent members of the public in order to create stories for MGN's newspapers. They appear to have been totally uncaring about the real distress and damage to relationships caused by their callous actions. There are numerous examples in the articles of the disclosure of private medical information, attendance at rehabilitation clinics, domestic violence, emotional calls to partners, details of plans for meeting friends and partners, finances and details of confidential employment negotiations, which the judge found could not have been made if the information had not been obtained by hacking or some other wrongful means. The disclosures were strikingly distressing to the respondents involved.
- per Arden LJ  EWCA Civ 1291 para 106
Success fees – Taylor Hampton's success fees to February 2013
… some of our current journalists have recently been arrested on charges that relate to phone hacking. We have done huge investigations and, to date, we have not found any proof that phone hacking took place.
3. 50% if the claim settles after the service of the first Defence served by an opponent.
4. 75% if the claim settles after the exchange of witness statements.
5. 100% if the claim settles on a date after 45 days before the trial window, or on a date after 45 days before the first day listed for trial (whichever is sooner), or if the claim proceeds to trial save when a hearing of preliminary issues is directed which is capable of determining the claim. In such an instance, the success fee is set at the percentage specified by stage 5 above of basic charges if the claim settles on a date after 45 days before the first day listed for any such hearing or if the claim proceeds to a hearing of preliminary issues which are capable of determining the claim.
Success fees –February 2013 to September 2013
I have been told by DI Setter that Ms Gulati, Mr Day and Mrs Benjamin are all mentioned in a hacking context in relation to the Sunday Mirror with regards to the material Operation Golding currently hold.
Success fees – September 2013 to September 2014
Success fees after September 2014
Definitions of "win"
Success fees - Common costs counsel
Retrospective success fees
i) In the cases of Mr Ashworth, Ms Frost and Ms Alcorn the Defendant contended that the staging of the premiums was unreasonable. Proceedings were issued with no letter of claim having been sent and so the Defendant had no opportunity of settling the claim at stage (ai). Those claims went to trial but the staging was such that the policy moved too quickly into the final stage.
ii) A similar point was made in relation to the cases of Ms Noble and Mrs Horlick, but their claims settled before trial at stage (bi).
iii) In relation to Mr Flitcroft and Mr Eriksson, the Defendant questioned why the Claimants had purchased an ATE policy with Temple only to replace it with another policy with Temple. Only the premiums under the second policies were claimed but by the time that the second policies were purchased the initial stages of the premium had elapsed.
Relief from sanctions