Arbitration and Costs
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Government responseUK Government: Not accepted (Mar 2018)
DeliveryUK Government says not accepted (May 2024)Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says not accepted (Mar 2018)
Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
It should be open any subscriber to a recognised regulatory body to rely on the fact of such membership and on the opportunity it provides for the claimant to use a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. It could request the court to encourage the use of that system of arbitration and, equally, to have regard to the availability of the arbitration system when considering claims for costs incurred by a claimant who could have used the arbitration service. On the issue of costs, it should equally be open to a claimant to rely on failure by a newspaper to subscribe to the regulator thereby depriving him or her of access to a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. Where that is the case, in the exercise of its discretion, the court could take the view that, even where the defendant is successful, absent unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the claimant, it would be inappropriate for the claimant to be expected to pay the costs incurred in defending the action.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Published evidence summary
AI-generated evidence summary
The Inquiry asked the government to adjust court costs rules to encourage recognised arbitration. In May 2024, section 50(2) of the Media Act 2024, enacted by Parliament, provided that "Section 40 (awards of costs) is omitted" (Media Act 2024, section 50, May 2024). In March 2018, Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, stated that the government decided not to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and would seek repeal, with the department confirming it would find a legislative vehicle to repeal the provision without commencing it first (Matt Hancock response, Mar 2018; Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Mar 2018; Matt Hancock, Mar 2018; Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Mar 2018). In March 2013, David Cameron, Prime Minister, had stated that costs rules in civil claims against publishers would be changed to incentivise joining a regulator (David Cameron, Mar 2013).
Sources
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 1 Oct 2026.
Report-level response context
Government response
●UK Government · Not accepted · 1 Mar 2018
Mr Speaker, we have decided not to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and to seek repeal at the earliest opportunity.
Extract from: Leveson Consultation Response
Delivery
●UK Government says not accepted · 24 May 2024
(2) Section 40 (awards of costs) is omitted.
●Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) says not accepted · 1 Mar 2018
find a legislative vehicle to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 at the first appropriate opportunity, without commencing it first; and
Earlier statements on delivery (0)
●Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (2017 to 2023) · 1 Mar 2018
Costs provisions were included in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, but they remain uncommenced. These provisions would create a presumption that publishers which are members of a recognised self regulator would be exempt from paying legal costs, even if they lost a court case; and that newspapers outside a recognised self-regulator would have to pay legal costs, even if they won a court case.
●UK Government · 18 Mar 2013
We will also change the rules on costs in civil claims against publishers so that there is a strong incentive to come inside the regulator, with its independent arbitration system.
From: Royal Charter on Press Conduct (House of Commons emergency debate), David Cameron, Prime Minister
How this page is built
The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.