‘Wagatha Christie’. I don’t think this case needs any further introduction. Actually, it wouldn’t be much of an introduction if I didn’t mention the words “celebrities”, “betrayal”, “social media”, “high profile”, “defamation”, “Royal Courts of Justice” and “Chanel dresses”. Now, this is starting to sound juicy, right?
Whilst the case itself has gained a lot of public attention, the lawyers involved have also been subject to some criticism for allegedly allowing the parties to see this case through to trial, in order to make some really big money. It seems that many think that every lawyer’s thought process goes something like: “Rich celebrities; high profile; Royal Courts of Justice; media attention = keeeeerching, ding ding ding!”
Although, would you believe me if I told you that, as litigators, many of us actually discourage our clients from taking their cases to court and advise them to avoid litigation? “But, surely that’s not in your interest” and “isn’t it the huge money makers that you work for though?”, I hear you say. It may surprise you if we said that it is and we don’t.
Let’s get a little technical now. As entertaining for the public as the commonly termed ‘Wagatha Christie’ case is, what about the court’s overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, as well as our duties, as lawyers, to comply with and advise on that objective? Not to mention, our duty to act in the best interest of our clients.
To consider how to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, we need to put things into perspective and do a bit of simple maths. Vardy brought a libel claim against Rooney, asking for £1 million. However, she has reportedly spent £1 million in costs and forced Rooney to defend herself in the action, who has also reportedly spent £1 million in costs.
The general rule of thumb in high value litigation is that the losing party pays a contribution towards the winning party’s costs (it’s very rarely 100%!). In these circumstances and in worst case scenarios, Vardy may very well win the case, but be awarded a nominal sum if the Judge sees fit, or Rooney may win and not be able to recover much in costs.
In this case, it’s clear that the costs of bringing the action far exceed the value of the claim itself. We haven’t even considered the potential costs of recovering the costs of proceedings yet. However, given the level of costs involved and compared to the value of the claim itself, I do wonder whether this case has been dealt with justly and proportionately.
As for us litigators, yes, we do make money from the trial, whatever the outcome, which to some appears as a “win”. Although, it’s widely considered far more effective to resolve the dispute without even going to court in the first place. In my view, this is the ultimate success for both the client and the lawyer. The client saves the time, stress and costs of court proceedings, whilst the lawyer is likely to receive repeat business and referrals from a very happy client. Win win.
“But, it’s the principle!”, remarks my client. “It’s not that I don’t understand your feelings or agree with your position, but is it all really worth the hassle?”, I respond.
If you find yourself in this position, it’s important to consider the consequences of issuing proceedings and seeing a case through to trial. Some of the things that you should think about are the risks; the costs; proportionality; the stress; the time (litigation could go on for years!); and the strain on your mental and physical health. Whilst it’s not always possible to avoid litigation, the fact remains that it should be a last resort.
When you’re looking to appoint a lawyer, you may want to look for someone who has a good focus on dispute resolution. This lawyer will have a desire to resolve the dispute without litigation. At Posada and Co, we do just that. However, if litigation is unavoidable, we are fully equipped to meet those needs as well.
If you would like to find out more, give Simran Khakharia, our Dispute Resolution and Litigation Solicitor, a call on 0203 744 3800, for a complimentary, no obligation consultation.
You can learn more about defamation from our article, The Defamation Act 2013 and Summerfield Browne Limited -v- Philip James Waymouth: A warning to online reviewers.
Stay tuned for our article about exactly how we can help to resolve disputes without the need for court proceedings.