You are reading a single comment by @cliveo and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
The reported judgment doesn't deal with costs, but the costs of £107,000 would have been costs on account. Jack Monroe may well receive more once the costs are assessed, although I agree that if the costs payable on account are £107,000 then the chances are that she'll break even at best with damages of £24,000.
The principle that the only winners in litigation are the lawyers isn't limited to libel cases. It's something I remind my clients of all the time. They are often still very keen to have their day in court. Go figure.
Brommers
@cliveo
She went down in costs as well and must pay 70% of Jack Monroe's cost which amounted to £107,000.
This means that Jack Monroe will be around £9,000 out of pocket once one takes into account the damages and the contribution to costs.
Hopkins, on the other hand will be significantly more out of pocket as she will pay £24,000 damages plus around £75,000 for Monroe's costs and then have to bear her own costs herself. These are unlikely to be less than £107,000 meaning that she will be at least £200,000 out of pocket.
As with all libel cases, the only winners are the lawyers who will be £200,000 + richer.