Arbitration and Costs
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: UK Government
Source — 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 →
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have created an incentive for publishers to join a recognised regulatory body, was enacted but never commenced. On 1 March 2018, the Secretary of State announced that Section 40 would not be commenced and would be repealed. Section 40 was repealed by Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 (Royal Assent 24 May 2024). This recommendation was contingent on a costs incentive framework that no longer exists. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leveson-consultation-response
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 24 May 2024 · UK Parliament Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 would have allowed courts to consider regulatory membership when awarding costs. Section 40 was never commenced and was repealed by Section 50 of the Media Act 2024 (Royal Assent 24 May 2024). The central enforcement mechanism of the Leveson framework has been permanently removed from statute. View source → Not Implemented
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.