In a significant victory for press freedom, the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper has prevailed in a European court case challenging the fairness of media organizations being required to pay substantial “success fees” to lawyers who bring cases against them. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that these fees, which can dramatically increase the legal costs for publishers who lose court battles, violate the right to freedom of expression.
Case Stems from Libel Lawsuit Settlement
The case originated from a libel lawsuit brought against Associated Newspapers, the Daily Mail’s parent company, by a Libyan man who had been arrested in connection with the devastating 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack. The man, who was ultimately released without charge, sued the publisher for breach of privacy after MailOnline published his name, photo, and personal details in its coverage.
Although Associated Newspapers settled the case, paying the man £83,000 in damages, the publisher balked at the additional £245,775 “success fee” it was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s lawyers. Under the UK’s “conditional fee agreement” system, commonly known as “no-win, no-fee,” lawyers can charge an uplift of up to 100% on their regular fees if they win a case for their client. This fee is then paid by the losing party.
Publisher Argues Fees Discourage Press Participation
In its case before the European Court of Human Rights, Associated Newspapers argued that the “success fee” system is “excessive and unfair” when applied to media organizations defending themselves against legal actions. The publisher’s lawyers contended that the looming threat of paying exorbitant fees to the opposing side’s counsel could “discourage the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate concern.”
The requirement that the applicant company pay costs which included success fees was disproportionate having regard to the legitimate aims sought to be achieved.
– European Court of Human Rights judges
Court: Fees Were “Eye-Watering” and Violated Publisher’s Rights
In a 7-0 decision, the court agreed with Associated Newspapers, finding that the “eye-watering” success fee the publisher was ordered to pay in the libel case “exceeded even the broad margin of appreciation” generally afforded to governments in matters of legal policy. The judges held that requiring media organizations to pay such substantial uplifts in legal fees violates their right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.
As part of the ruling, the court ordered the UK government to pay Associated Newspapers €15,000 for costs and expenses related to bringing the case. The judges said they would decide at a later date whether the government must also reimburse the publisher for the nearly £320,000 success fee it had paid out in the underlying libel case.
Major Implications for UK Media Law
Legal experts say the European court’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences for libel and privacy cases in the UK, making it easier for media organizations to defend themselves and report on matters of public interest without fear of facing exorbitant costs for unsuccessful court battles. Critics of the UK’s current “no-win, no-fee” system argue it has had a chilling effect on press freedom and public interest journalism.
For too long, publishers have faced an uphill battle defending important reporting in the courts, knowing they could be on the hook for outrageous success fees if they lose on even a technicality. This ruling restores some much-needed balance to the system.
– A source familiar with the case
The court’s decision is a major victory for Associated Newspapers, but its impact is likely to extend well beyond the Daily Mail’s publisher. Other UK media organizations will be closely examining the ruling to determine how it could affect their approach to legally sensitive reporting and their willingness to defend cases they believe are in the public interest.
Lawmakers Under Pressure to Address Concerns
The European court’s strong rebuke of the UK’s current success fee system in media cases will also put pressure on British lawmakers to reexamine the rules around conditional fee agreements and consider reforms to better balance freedom of the press with the rights of plaintiffs. Some legal experts have called for caps on success fees in media cases or for requiring greater judicial oversight before such uplifts can be applied.
As the reverberations of this landmark ruling continue to be felt, media organizations, lawyers, and lawmakers across the UK and Europe will be grappling with its implications for the future of press freedom and the evolving landscape of media law in the digital age. For now, Associated Newspapers can savor a hard-fought legal victory that may give publishers more confidence to vigorously defend their journalism in the courts.
