AC-2024-LON-003165 - [2025] EWHC 2532 (Admin)

Mr Westhead, who is not legally represented, resists both applications. In his written submissions on costs, he sought to reargue many of the points he had advanced at the substantive hearing. However, he understood that the costs hearing did not afford an opportunity to revisit the findings already made in the substantive judgment and that the costs applications would be determined having regard to those findings. Aside from his continued insistence that Mr Bates and others connected to hibu plc, the company in which Mr Westhead had been a shareholder when it had gone into administration, had committed fraud, Mr Westhead made the following points:

Mr Westhead concluded his written submissions by “politely asking whether the Courts have power to make payment to Hibu Shareholders Group to launch the next application for a summons to be issued for a private prosecution of all four of the fraud perpetrators …”. He ended his oral submissions by telling us that his real concern was that if the costs went against him it would “break [his] spirit to carry on the fight for justice”. He did though accept that he might have to pay some costs but “only up to the magistrates’ level.”

Mr Westhead did not seek to address us on the legal principles underpinning the applications. Mr Darbishire helpfully identified the legal issues likely to arise and proposed that the Court may wish to invite the Attorney-General to appoint an Advocate to the Court to avoid the risk of the arguments on the Murphy principle being decided without the Court hearing relevant legal argument which might be contrary to the Claimant’s submissions. Further, the Claimant undertook not to seek the additional costs of pursuing the costs arguments from Mr Westhead.