Case Law: Flood v Times Newspapers, CFA appeals dismissed, future of the scheme left open – Aidan Wills

20 04 2017

On 11 April 2017 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed three appeals brought by media organisations challenging the article 10 ECHR compliance of the recovery of additional liabilities (CFA success fees and ATE insurance premiums) from defendants in ‘publication cases.’ ([2017] UKSC 33). Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a claimant lawyer’s perspective – Nigel Tait

14 04 2017

There is an old saying that when a woman is forced to choose between two men, she opts for the third, and so it is with the Supreme Court’s decision in Times Newspapers Ltd v Flood, Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd [2017] UKSC 33. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a response to Keith Mathieson from a lawyer who acts for both claimants and defendants – Jonathan Coad

13 04 2017

In his piece on Inforrm yesterday, Keith Mathieson begins by describing the use of CFAs in cases against the media as a “scandal”. Evidently the Supreme Court did not agree with him – unanimously. One of the titles for whom he acts has already described judges with whom they disagree as “Enemies of the people”, so I suppose the judges can count themselves lucky not to have been attacked in similar terms. Read the rest of this entry »





The Supreme Court decision in Flood, Miller and Frost: a defence lawyer’s perspective – Keith Mathieson

12 04 2017

The use of CFAs in cases against the media had become a scandal long before this appeal was heard.  A mechanism intended to provide access to justice had become a gravy train for claimant lawyers.  As claimant lawyers know, the mere threat of a CFA and ATE insurance could be used to bulldoze a media company into submission. Read the rest of this entry »





With ‘no-win-no-fee’ deals harder to get in libel cases, government must choose whether to back the corporate press or the ordinary citizen – Brian Cathcart

12 04 2017

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals brought by the Murdoch, Mail and Mirror newspaper companies in relation to costs they must pay in libel and privacy cases they have lost – but at the same time the judges have thrown the future of access to justice in such cases into the lap of the government. Read the rest of this entry »





A Flood of CFAs? Looking ahead to the UKSC’s additional liabilities judgment and its implications for media lawyers – Aidan Wills

9 02 2017

510-supreme-court-1From 24 to 26 January 2017, the Supreme Court heard three joined appeals raising the issue as to whether the recovery of conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) success fees and after the event insurance (“ATE”) premiums (collectively known as “additional liabilities”) in publication and privacy cases is incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. Inforrm published a case preview here. Read the rest of this entry »





Press companies ask Supreme Court to ensure only millionaires can sue them – Brian Cathcart

30 01 2017

Press on SaleSometimes, even after all these years of press lies and hypocrisy, the shamelessness of the big British newspaper companies can still take the breath away. Last week lawyers for the Murdoch, Mirror and Mail papers complained to the Supreme Court that costs in some media cases amounted to a ‘legal casino’ in which the bills could be so high that there was a ‘chilling effect’ on journalism. As a result, they argued, freedom of expression was endangered. Read the rest of this entry »