Trinity Mirror has more than doubled its phone hacking payout fund to £28m, after the high court ruled the publisher must pay £1.2m in damages to eight celebrities.
The publisher, which is facing more than 100 cases of alleged phone hacking, said that it would increase its financial provision for dealing with legal costs and payouts from £12m to £28m.
Trinity Mirror, which publishes the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People, said that the financial impact of the potential payouts remained “manageable”.
“As the legal process has taken longer and the costs of settling claims is likely to be higher than previously anticipated we are increasing our provision to deal with matters arising from phone hacking,” the company said in a statement to the stock market. “The board is confident that the exposures arising from these historic events are manageable and do not undermine the delivery of the group’s strategy for growth.”
Trinity Mirror originally set aside just £4m last July to deal with phone-hacking claims.
However, as the scale of the number of potential claims rapidly mounted, Trinity Mirror moved to triple the fund to £12m in February, and offered its first open apology to victims.
Just three months later that figure has ballooned to £28m following a high court ruling on Thursday awarding £1.2m to celebrities including actor Sadie Frost and former footballer Paul Gascoigne.
The civil case is the first of its kind to result in a high court trial and is seen as setting the benchmark for assessing other claims against Trinity Mirror’s newspaper subsidiary Mirror Group Newspapers.
“We note the judgment released today by Mr Justice Mann following the conclusion of the civil trial for the assessment of damages for eight representative claimants arising from phone hacking,” the company said on Thursday. “Our subsidiary MGN Ltd has already accepted that it should pay appropriate compensation to individuals who were targets of phone hacking.”
Trinity Mirror, which has seen its share price fall 7.1p or 3.9% since the ruling was published, said that it is considering appealing against the scale of the payouts.
“Our initial view of the lengthy judgment is that the basis used for calculating damages is incorrect and we are therefore considering whether to seek permission to appeal,” the company said.
