Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Ms Adrienne Page KC and Mr David Hirst (instructed by Taylor Hampton) for the Claimant Mr Christopher Knight (instructed by Bloomsbury Law) for the Defendants Hearing date: 8 December 2022 ____________________
The applications for summary judgment on the counterclaim, for an interim payment (�250,000) and/or for conditions to be imposed requiring the claimant to pay money into court on account of the costs of the defendants' defending the claim (�350,000) and bringing the counterclaim (�100,000)
Note 1 I note that in Gulati v MGN [2015] EWCA Civ 1291 the Court of Appeal upheld first instance damages awards of between �55,000 and �110,000 for acts of unauthorised accessing of voicemails, before any adjustment for aggravated damages, with additional damages awards for each act of disclosure of the information to the public. [Back]
Note 2 To be fair to the defendants, this deeply unattractive point was not put forward as a freestanding ground of abuse of process, but, rather, to �assist consideration of the Jameel and Henderson arguments�. [Back]
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.