This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/why-has-hugh-grant-settled-his-phone-hacking-claim-against-the-sun

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why has Hugh Grant settled his phone hacking claim against the Sun? Why has Hugh Grant settled his phone hacking claim against the Sun?
(32 minutes later)
The actor said he wanted to fight on – but the size of a settlement offer from News Group made it financially risky to proceed further The actor said he wanted to fight on – but the size of an offer from News Group made it financially risky to continue
Why did Hugh Grant settle his legal case against the Sun – even though he wanted to fight on?The actor has accepted an “enormous” settlement from the Sun in return for dropping his claim that he was illegally targeted by the newspaper’s journalists. Why did Hugh Grant settle even though he wanted to fight on?
Grant said he had wanted to fight the case and go to trial, where the Sun’s top executives could be called to give evidence. But he has instead concluded he cannot afford to turn down the payout from the Murdoch-owned newspaper – which he will be donating to press regulation charities. The actor has accepted an “enormous” settlement from the Sun in return for dropping his claim that he was illegally targeted by the newspaper’s journalists.
This is due to a quirk in the way the English legal system encourages both sides to settle cases before trial – or risk financial oblivion due to the legal costs involved. Grant had said he had wanted to fight the case and go to trial, where the Sun’s top executives could be called to give evidence. But he has concluded he cannot afford to turn down the payout from the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, which he will be donating to press regulation charities.
Why did Grant settle his case?It all hinges on a technical piece of civil law procedure known as a “Part 36 offer”. This is because of a quirk in the way the English legal system encourages both sides to settle cases before trial or risk financial oblivion owing to the legal costs involved.
It all hinges on a technical piece of civil law procedure known as a “Part 36 offer”.
The Sun has used this provision to offer Grant what he has called an “enormous” amount of money to settle the case. The actor’s lawyers have advised him that this is more money than he is likely to be awarded in damages by a judge after a trial, even if his case were completely successful.The Sun has used this provision to offer Grant what he has called an “enormous” amount of money to settle the case. The actor’s lawyers have advised him that this is more money than he is likely to be awarded in damages by a judge after a trial, even if his case were completely successful.
As a result, under the Part 36 rules, even if he were victorious at trial, Grant could find himself having to pay the enormous legal costs for both sides.As a result, under the Part 36 rules, even if he were victorious at trial, Grant could find himself having to pay the enormous legal costs for both sides.
As Grant wrote on X: “If I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides.”As Grant wrote on X: “If I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides.”
This is because, in the eyes of the court, he would have wasted everyone’s time by fighting the case when he could have accepted more money at a much earlier date.This is because, in the eyes of the court, he would have wasted everyone’s time by fighting the case when he could have accepted more money at a much earlier date.
Doesn’t this stop justice being seen to be done?This system is designed to encourage financial settlements without putting claimants through the stresses of court appearances, while also reducing legal costs. Doesn’t this stop justice being seen to be done?
But it does create an incentive for those accused of wrongdoing – and desperate to avoid a messy public trial, where senior executives could be called to give evidence – to offer more money than could ever realistically be awarded by a judge. In addition, such settlement offers can be made without any public acceptance of wrongdoing. This system is designed to encourage financial settlements without putting claimants through the stress of court appearances, while also reducing legal costs.
Grant said: “Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive. So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10 million in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.” But it does create an incentive for those accused of wrongdoing and desperate to avoid a messy public trial, where senior executives could be called to give evidence, to offer more money than could ever realistically be awarded by a judge. In addition, such settlement offers can be made without any public acceptance of wrongdoing.
Is this the first time the Sun has settled a case in this manner?No. Hundreds of cases have been settled by the Sun’s parent company in this manner – relating to both the newspapers in its stable that are still being published and the defunct News of the World. Grant said: “Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive. So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10m in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.”
Many of the people who accepted the settlements said they did not feel justice had been done as they were unable to air their evidence in open court and have a judge rule on the veracity of their allegations. Is this the first time the Sun has settled in this manner?
No. Hundreds of cases have been settled by the Sun’s parent company this way, relating to both the newspapers still being published and the defunct News of the World.
Many of the people who accepted settlements said they did not feel justice had been done as they were unable to air their evidence in open court and have a judge rule on the veracity of their allegations.
The actor Sienna Miller reluctantly accepted a large financial settlement over her claims of phone hacking at the Sun. She said in 2021: “I wanted to go to trial. I wanted to expose the criminality that runs through the heart of this corporation.” Despite being a successful film actor, Miller said she could not afford the “countless millions of pounds to spend on the pursuit of justice” required to take the case to trial.The actor Sienna Miller reluctantly accepted a large financial settlement over her claims of phone hacking at the Sun. She said in 2021: “I wanted to go to trial. I wanted to expose the criminality that runs through the heart of this corporation.” Despite being a successful film actor, Miller said she could not afford the “countless millions of pounds to spend on the pursuit of justice” required to take the case to trial.
If there was no illegal behaviour at the Sun, why does Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers continue to pay substantial financial settlements to people claiming there was, rather than fight the accusations in a trial?The answer to this question still remains unclear. A spokesperson for the newspaper offered this explanation: “It is in both parties’ financial interests not to progress to a costly trial.” If there was no illegal behaviour at the Sun, why does News Group not fight the accusations?
The answer remains unclear. A spokesperson for the newspaper offered this explanation: “It is in both parties’ financial interests not to progress to a costly trial.”
Grant described his payout as having the stench of “hush money” and said: “As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.”Grant described his payout as having the stench of “hush money” and said: “As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.”
What is the legal position of the Sun?It is accepted that phone hacking was widespread at the News of the World during the 00s, but Murdoch’s company has always insisted that the Sun – edited by the current News UK chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, during much of this period – was not involved in illegality. Brooks was personally found not guilty of phone hacking in a criminal trial in 2014. What is the legal position of the Sun?
No claims against the Sun have ever gone to trial, although several “Sun-only” claims relating to alleged illegal behaviour when Brooks was editor have been settled without admissions of guilt. The company’s total bill for phone hacking cases over the last two decades has now passed £1bn. It is accepted that phone hacking was widespread at the News of the World during the 00s, but Murdoch’s company has always insisted that the Sun – edited by the current News UK chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, during much of this period – was not involved in illegality. Brooks was found not guilty of phone hacking in a criminal trial in 2014.
Will anyone ever take the Sun all the way to trial, even if it they end up paying millions of pounds in legal fees for the right to do so?Prince Harry, who has brought a parallel case alongside Hugh Grant, is probably the only sufficiently wealthy and determined claimant who could now fight all the way to a trial. His case remains scheduled for January 2025 – and he has given no indication that he will settle. No claims against the Sun have ever gone to trial, although several “Sun-only” claims relating to alleged illegal behaviour when Brooks was editor have been settled without an admission of guilt. The company’s total bill for phone hacking cases over the last two decades has now passed £1bn.
Will anyone ever take the Sun all the way to trial?
They would risk ending up paying millions of pounds in legal fees for the right to do so. Prince Harry, who has brought a parallel case alongside Hugh Grant, is probably the only sufficiently wealthy and determined claimant who could now fight all the way to a trial. His case remains scheduled for January 2025 – and he has given no indication that he will settle.