Actor Noel Clarke has been ordered to pay at least £3 million of Guardian News and Media’s (GNM) legal costs after losing his libel claim action against the publisher. The order was made by Mrs Justice Steyn DBE at the High Court, who described Clarke’s claim as “far-fetched” and “false”.

Clarke, known for roles in Doctor Who and Kidulthood, sued GNM after The Guardian published a series of articles in 2021 alleging he had engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour within the film and television industry. Following a six-week trial earlier this year, the court dismissed his claim, holding that the articles were substantially true and protected by the defence of public interest.

Interim costs order

At a recent hearing, Mrs Justice Steyn ordered Clarke to make an interim payment of £3 million within 28 days towards the publisher’s costs, pending detailed assessment. GNM has estimated its total costs at around £6 million.  Pursuant to CPR 44.2(8), when a final Order is being made to conclude a set of proceedings, a suitable payment on account of costs should be ordered.  This ensures that the Receiving Party is placed in funds to continue with the detailed assessment process, and does not remain out of pocket, but it also benefits the Paying Party by ensuring that interest is kept to a minimum (which by default runs at 8% per annum on outstanding judgments).

The judge ruled in the Clarke matter that:

“It seems to me that the sum of £3m sought by the defendant is appropriate and no more than that ought to be reasonably ordered in this case. It is substantially lower than the defendant’s likely level of recovery on detailed assessment and so in my judgment, it does allow for a suitably wide margin of error.”

She added that Clarke had pursued “a far-fetched and indeed a false claim that the articles were not substantially true, by pursuing allegations of dishonesty and bad faith against almost all of the defendant’s truth witnesses.”

Counsel for GNM, Gavin Millar KC, had sought half of the estimated £6m as an interim payment, noting that this was “significantly less” than the usual 75-80% of costs commonly awarded.  Typically, a 50% – 66% payment on account in non-budgeted matters is not unusual, and follows the precedent set by Mars UK Limited – v- Teknowledge Limited (1999) EWHC 226.

Clarke’s Position

Representing himself at the hearing, Clarke argued that the costs claimed were excessive and disproportionate given his personal circumstances. He told the court:

“I have lost my work, my savings, my legal team, my ability to support my family and much of my health. Any costs or interim payments must be proportionate to my means as a single household, not the unlimited resources of a major media conglomerate.”

He further explained that his legal team had withdrawn after he was unable to fund the hearing, and he asked the court to stay any order pending a potential appeal.  In general detailed assessment proceedings are not stayed by any appeal unless permission is given by the Court, subject to CPR 47.2. 

Next Steps in Costs for Noel Clarke v Guardian

The High Court’s order that Noel Clarke pay £3m on account of the Guardian’s legal costs is only the start of a lengthy legal costs process. With total costs estimated at £6m, the matter will now move into detailed assessment unless Clarke’s proposed appeal succeeds.

Under CPR Part 47, GNM will serve a bill of costs, to which Clarke can file points of dispute. If agreement cannot be reached, a Costs Judge will assess the bill, applying both reasonableness and proportionality tests.

Given the six-week trial, the seriousness of the allegations, the Guardian is likely to argue that costs at this level were proportionate. Clarke may challenge hourly rates, the use of multiple counsel, and the scale of disclosure and trial preparation.

The case underlines the costs risks in libel litigation. The “loser pays” principle under CPR 44.2 means unsuccessful claimants can face devastating liabilities, while interim costs orders ensure defendants recover significant sums well before detailed assessment.

How can ARC Costs Assist in Detailed Assessment Proceedings?

ARC Costs are an experienced and independent team of specialised Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers. We assist both paying and receiving parties in resolving costs disputes, and are adept at preparing Costs Budgets and Bill of Costs for receiving parties, as well as providing legal costs negotiations services and preparing Points of Reply.

For paying parties, we are adept at preparing Points of Dispute, and ensuring that a proportionate level of costs is recovered. Proportionality is a subjective issue, and it is therefore important you have the right legal costs representative on your side during detailed assessment to ensure you make the most persuasive submissions on the issue.  

Should you require any assistance or free initial advice, please call us on 01204 397302, or email one of our costs experts direct on info@arccosts.co.uk.

Follow Us