Baroness Lawrence v Associated Newspapers: joint and several liability for common costs in multi-party litigation

The High Court has issued an important ruling on costs liability in the ongoing phone hacking litigation involving seven claimants, including Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, against Associated Newspapers Limited. In a judgement handed down on 9 December 2025, Senior Master Cook (with the support of Mr Justice Nicklin) addressed two critical costs-related issues arising from the fourth Case Management Conference.

The primary issue concerned the defendant's application for an order determining that claimants should be jointly and severally liable for common costs in the event they are ordered to pay the defendant's costs. This application arose from the November 2024 costs management order, which required claimants to file budgets separating their individual and common costs. Whilst that order addressed internal cost-sharing between claimants, it remained silent on their liability for adverse common costs.

The defendant argued that the claimants' cases rely substantially on similar fact and generic allegations that form a collective core to all claims. Each claimant pleads reliance on the assertion that unlawful acts were "habitually and widely carried out" by Associated Newspapers as supporting their individual cases. The defendant contended that common costs should therefore be subject to joint and several liability, whilst individual costs would remain several.

The claimants resisted the application on several grounds, arguing that costs should ordinarily be determined after trial, that the order sought was premature and provisional, and that several liability was more appropriate given that these are separate claims by seven individuals represented by three different solicitors. The claimants had obtained individual ATE insurance policies totalling £14.1 million and expressed concern that a joint and several liability order might necessitate increased coverage.

The court granted the defendant's application, finding that the nature of the claims justified making the order at this stage. Senior Master Cook emphasised that whilst these are individual claims issued separately, they have been case-managed together with substantial common issues. The claimants' cases depend not merely on bringing the same central case based on similar fact and generic evidence, but on each claimant's specific case cross-supporting the others. The court applied established principles from Stumm v Dixon (1889), holding that parties combining to present collective claims or defences should be jointly liable for reasonable common costs whilst remaining severally liable for individual costs.

The judgement also addressed various budget variation applications. The court approved additional costs for a further Case Management Conference, allowed £95,000 for the defendant's work responding to amended particulars of claim, and permitted £357,919 for maintaining a legacy email archive necessitated by the litigation. However, the court significantly reduced other claimed variations, allowing only £20,000 of the claimants' £36,120 claim for amended replies and £80,000 of their £495,520 disclosure variation request.

The decision provides important clarity on costs liability in multi-party actions where claimants pursue both individual and collective claims, establishing that joint and several liability for common costs can be determined before trial where the nature of the litigation warrants such an order.

Copyright & permissions