§ Lord Allen of Abbeydaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now able to announce the results of the review of procedure for payments into court which was promised last March following the Tesco alleged shoplifting case.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)I have re-examined the system of payments into court followng the decision inWarby v. Cascarino (The Tesco case). As regards the award of costs, I am satisfied that the High Court has ample discretion, under Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, to determine by whom and to what extent the costs of any case are to be paid. I therefore think it right that the present procedure for payments into court should remain the normal method for a defendant to offer a sum of money intended to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.
A particular difficulty arises in defamation cases, where a plaintiff who is chiefly concerned to clear his name may be reluctant to accept in payment into court without an admission of liability. Under the existing rule (Order 82, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court) a plaintiff in a defamation case who has accepted a payment into court may ask the court for leave to make a statement, in terms approved by the judge. He thus takes the risk of settling the action without knowing whether such a statement will be made. An amendment to the rule, which comes into effect on 5th February, will allow the plaintiff to make his application for leave to make a statement in court before deciding whether or not to accept the payment. The scope of this rule will also be extended to include actions for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment as well as libel and slander.