The judgment is Hegglin -v- Persons Unknown & Google [2014] EWHC 3793 is looked in at detail in an earlier post.  Many of the issues in that case are of considerable practical significance. It is worth distilling them.


  • Orders will only be made under Part 18 when it is necessary and proportionate to allow a party to understand the case it has to meet.
  • Questions about the claimant’s connection with the jurisdiction were unlikely to affect the outcome of the case.
  • Replying to Google’s Part 18 questions would not result in a great saving of time or narrowing of issues.
  • The court refused to make an order that the claimant reply to Google’s Part 18 questions.


  • Communications between the claimant and a reputation management company that were not privileged should already had been disclosed.
  • There was no evidence that the claimant had failed in the search and had failed to disclose relevant material.
  • The claimant had to disclose details of deleted e-mails together with a statement explaining the loss of any material and whether any of the deleted material was relevant and why.
  • Parties should be careful when making specific disclosure requests to make them sensible and proportionate.


  • The claimant’s application for costs capping of Google’s costs was made too late. The court refused to costs cap.
  • However the court could, and should, impose a costs budget.
  • Google’s costs of the trial were budgeted so that they were, broadly, similar to the claimant’s costs.
  • A party wishing to impose a costs cap/have costs budgeting should apply for this as early as possible.


  • Google had pleaded a certain key issue was “denied” when this should have been “admitted”.
  • Google also put forward replies which were at variance with its pleaded case.
  • Google’s Defence put in issue a large number of matters upon which it had very little prospect of success and therefore did not make clear its true case.
  • This was likely to have an impact on any recoverable costs if Google were to obtain a costs order with a substantial reduction in the costs incurred to date.


  • Google were ordered to pay 75% of the costs of the application.
  • It would have been preferable if the claimant had separate figures for each individual application.
  • The claimant was not to recover the costs of complying with the order for disclosure in relation to the amended disclosure statement in relation to deleted e-mails.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: