Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What is the court to make of a situation in which a political party involves itself as a non-party in a defamation claim that was being brought against one of its Parliamentary candidates? Would mere funding of the defence give rise to a liability for costs? Would such a liability arise if the party took a ‘deliberate, informed and calculated’ decision to avoid the claim settling until after a forthcoming General Election? These were the questions before Warby J in the recent judgment of Barron MP and others v Collins MEP and another  EWHC 253 (QB).
Warby J in making a non-party costs order a key element was his finding that UKIP took a ‘deliberate, informed and calculated’ decision to ensure that the case was not settled before the General Election. That decision ‘very probably’ prevented a settlement from taking place at that time. Warby J’s decision has added to the line of cases that have followed Turvill v Bird  EWCA Civ 703 and Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc  EWCA Civ 23, those being decisions that confirm that the principles in Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson  QB 179 (CA) and related cases are not immutable; Warby J has emphasised that the critical factor in deciding whether a non-party costs order should be made is the nature and degree of the non-party’s connection with the proceedings.
LexisPSL Dispute Resolution subscribers enjoy access to the full news analysis Non-party costs order against a political party who prevented the timely settlement of a defamation claim for political reasons (Barron v Collins) written by Dr Mark Friston, Barrister, Hailsham Chambers.
If you’re not a subscriber, click here to take a free trial.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234