Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the claimants' position argue that phone-hacking and other unlawful press intrusion caused genuine harm, and that pursuing accountability through the courts serves the public interest even when a case ultimately fails. They contend that an exceptionally large costs order, especially one that could reach £34.5 million, risks deterring future claimants of more modest means from bringing legitimate privacy claims against powerful newspaper groups, effectively insulating the press from scrutiny. From this view, the size of the penalty matters as much as its justification, since it shapes whether ordinary people can ever afford to challenge media conduct in court.

The case against

Those who back the judge's ruling argue that costs orders exist precisely to discourage claimants from running excessively broad, speculative cases that consume enormous court resources and unfairly burden defendants who are ultimately vindicated. They point to the judge's specific findings that the claimants' team advanced unsupported allegations, including claims that executives lied to the Leveson inquiry, and failed to narrow the case as it progressed, as clear evidence of litigation conduct falling short of reasonable standards. On this view, a substantial costs order is a necessary safeguard for defendants and the justice system, ensuring that well-resourced claimants cannot pursue weak or overreaching claims without meaningful consequence.