The Role Of A Part 36 Offer In Hugh Grant Phone Hacking Case
In April 2024, film star Hugh Grant accepted an “enormous sum of money” from News Group Newspapers to settle his phone hacking against it. However, in subsequent comments, he expressed disappointment at being deprived of an opportunity to face his opponent in court.
Ieuan Jones, head of our Dispute Resolution Team, takes a closer look at the facts and the effect accepting a Part 36 offer can have on court proceedings.
Background
Back in March 2022, Hugh Grant issued a privacy claim through the court against News Group Newspapers Limited (NGN). He made allegations that The Sun newspaper had breached his privacy by conducting phone hacking, phone tapping, “blagging” of his personal information, and burglary, amongst various other acts.
The arguments in his case and their strength of it are not under discussion here, so much as what eventually happened – Grant accepted an “enormous sum of money” from NGN to settle his claim. This meant the court procedure stopped dead in its tracks and there was no possibility that he would get his day in court to face down NGN.
There are many who would far rather accept a large sum of money than go through the ordeal of a court hearing. However, Grant himself has said that the offer was accepted somewhat reluctantly. The settlement offer was taken under advice from his legal advisers, but ultimately he would have “loved to see” his phone hacking claim tested in a courtroom before a judge.
Grant, as well as others commenting on the case, seems to suggest that this process does not seem fair and that, in effect, the system allows a party to pay their way out of confronting their opponent in court.
But is that a fair analysis of what happens when offers are made in court proceedings?
What is a “Part 36” offer?
First of all, we need to take a look at the type of offer under discussion in Hugh Grant’s phone hacking case – what is known as a “Part 36” offer. (“Part 36” refers to the particular part of the Civil Procedure Rules that sets out the rule.)
A complete analysis of the ins and outs of Part 36 offers would take far too long for a short article. So instead we will take a broad look at what they can be used for and how that would have applied in this case.
It is true to say that Part 36 offers are mainly used for reasons of tactics. However, it is important to realise that their value can benefit claimant parties just as much as defendant parties.
An important feature of modern court litigation (enshrined in what is known as the “Overriding Objective” and elsewhere) is that parties should consider at all stages options for settlement of the claim outside of the court process. For that reason, Part 36 offers were brought in by the judiciary as one of a number of measures to make parties seriously consider the risk in litigation and to focus their minds toward settlement.
For example, if a claimant receives a Part 36 offer from a defendant but decides not to accept it, then goes to the court hearing and fails to beat it (because they win less money than in the offer), then they will be heavily penalised on their costs recovery. The claimant is in effect “punished” by the court for not having taken the opportunity to accept what was put on the table and press on to court instead, only to win less. The mechanism for this is set down in Part 36 itself, in other words, the penalty applies automatically and there is not much if anything a party can do to try and argue their way out of it.
Serious consequences
So in a claim such as Hugh Grant’s, where legal costs on both sides are expected to be a small fortune, such considerations should be at the forefront of his mind, especially if the Part 36 offer is for an “enormous” sum.
He would therefore need to weigh up the risks in his case, including the serious consequence of walking away from court with less than NGN offered him – a classic case of winning on paper but losing overall. In other words, exactly the risk to avoid that the judiciary had intended when they brought in Part 36 offers in the first place.
A tactical weapon on both sides
Hugh Grant has intimated that being put in this dilemma is unfair, however, that is only one side of the story since Part 36 can be just as effective a tactical weapon for claimants. To take the opposite example, if the defendant chooses not to accept a Part 36 offer made by a claimant, who then goes to court and wins more, then the claimant will expect to reap the benefits of a much-enhanced costs award, on top of their damages award by the court.
Part 36 offers are therefore an invaluable weapon for either party to use in litigation because they focus the minds of all concerned and could represent a disastrous risk to take if you do not accept it and are “beaten” in court. This is fully in keeping with what the judiciary had in mind when they were brought in: to encourage the parties to seriously think about how to settle their case before they reach the doors of the court.
If you need to resolve a dispute and are unsure whether to take it to court or attempt to settle out of court, GA’s specialist dispute resolution solicitors are here to help. While it is unlikely your case will be as public as Hugh Grant’s phone hacking case, you could still look to save a considerable amount of money and time by carefully considering your options and making or accepting a Part 36 offer.
Call the team today on 01752 203500 or email me directly via ieuan.jones@GAsolicitors.com
All content on this website (inclusive of guides, blogs and imagery) is strictly copyrighted by Gill Akaster LLP, trading as GA Solicitors. It is not to be used by any third party without prior contact and permission. Any requests for content should be sent to katy.mckenna@GAsolicitors.com.