BARONESS LAWRENCE & ORS v ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB)

Where multiple claimants pursue interconnected claims relying on common allegations, the court may order joint and several liability for adverse common costs—even absent a Group Litigation Order—requiring claimants to reassess their ATE cover before incurring substantial trial preparation costs.

• Where multiple claimants effectively combine to present claims based on common allegations against a single defendant, the court may order that each claimant is jointly and severally liable for the adverse costs relating to the common elements of the litigation, and severally liable only for costs specific to their individual claim.
• The court may determine the basis for adverse costs liability at a case management stage, before the conclusion of proceedings, where it is imperative to provide the parties with clarity on the financial consequences of their collective litigation strategy before they incur substantial further costs.
• A party seeking to vary an approved costs budget under CPR 3.15A must demonstrate a ‘significant development’ in the litigation, which is an event, circumstance, or step of such a size and nature as to go beyond what was taken into account, expressly or impliedly, in the previously approved budget.
• When assessing a proposed budget variation, the court is not bound by any offer made between the parties and retains a complete discretion to approve a sum it considers reasonable and proportionate for the work attributable to the significant development.
• Expenditure incurred solely to preserve evidence for the purposes of ongoing litigation, such as maintaining a legacy data archive, can be allowed as a budget variation if the evidence demonstrates the cost is incurred only by reason of the litigation and was not previously factored into the budget.