The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.34 of 2004

Gazley v Wade Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd
18 November 2004
Mr Justice Eady (Sitting with Assessors)

On a Saturday morning the second defendants, the publishers of The Sun newspaper, 'exposed' a paedophile living in Great Yarmouth, who was identified as the claimant, together with a photograph. Unfortunately the defendants had made a mistake, and the person who should have been exposed was another resident in the same block of flats.

The claimant, fearful of retribution from angry neighbours, went to the police for protection, who advised him to get in touch with a local firm of Norwich solicitors whom they knew. That firm arranged various TV and press interviews over the weekend, and an apology was forthcoming on the same day from The Sun's editor, together with an offer of £10,000 damages.

After the claimant visited the solicitor's offices on Monday he became unhappy with what he perceived as their inability to handle such a difficult case, and with help from a friend transferred his case to one of the leading London firms of defamation specialists. That firm, building on the work done by the Norwich firm, succeeded in obtaining a better apology, and an increase in the damages to £50,000, with an order for costs.

In their bill they sought a 100% success fee in the CFA under which the claimant instructed them, and of course claimed for work at London rates. The result was a bill totalling some £91,000.

The Costs Judge reduced this to £32,000, firstly by reducing the success fee from 100% to 20%, and secondly by allowing Norwich rather than London rates.

The defendants appealed only in respect of the rates issue. The Judge who heard the appeal, a defamation specialist Judge, held that the decision made by the Costs Judge was not one with which he felt he had to interfere, notwithstanding the additional evidence presented to him that had not been before the Costs Judge, but he did give guidance as to the sort of case which would justify a defamation claimant from outside London using a specialist London defamation firm of solicitors, as opposed to a firm outside London with access to specialist defamation counsel.