AC-2024-LON-001764 - [2025] EWHC 2355 (Admin)

The Claimants (whether individually or jointly) cannot afford to fund the litigation. The Defendant does not expect either of them to do so. However, Ms Carlo is employed as the Director of Big Brother Watch (“BBW”), a non-profit organisation that campaigns on (among other things) the use of LFR by police.

As set out in Ms Carlo’s witness statements, BBW supports the litigation and (at the time of Ms Carlo’s Fourth Witness Statement) it had raised £24,409 from crowdfunding (£23,299 after the fees of the crowdfunding platform are deducted). In addition, BBW has secured an offer of £15,000 from the organisation Law for Change. These combined sources of funding, together with a future fundraising effort, formed the basis of the Claimants’ proposal that their costs liability be capped at £40,900. The Claimants accepted that such a sum could be obtained to meet any costs order made against them.

The Claimants have said in witness statements that they do not have access to any other funding to meet an adverse costs award. I understood their position by the hearing to be that, unless their costs liability were capped at £40,900, they would withdraw the claim.

In addition to the Claimants’ evidence, the court has been provided with evidence from BBW. The most recent evidence comes from Lord Paul Strasburger who is the Chair of BBW’s Board of Directors. He has provided a detailed witness statement about BBW’s income and outgoings. He confirms that BBW has agreed to indemnify both Claimants against the risk of an adverse costs award up to £35,900 (which has, since his statement was signed, risen to £40,900). He sets out why BBW should not be exposed to £107,700.

Lord Strasburger explains that BBW’s funds fall into three parts: restricted funds, unrestricted funds and reserves. Restricted funds derive from project-specific grants. Plainly, BBW cannot use grants awarded for some other specific purpose to fund the present claim. I discount them as a source of litigation funding and need say no more about these funds.

BBW’s unrestricted funds derive from public donations. They are used to cover the organisation’s core operational costs such as staff salaries, office space, bills, and IT costs. As at the date of Lord Strasburger’s statement (4 July 2025), BBW held £235,221 in unrestricted funds which represents about four and a half months of the organisation’s running costs.

BBW’s reserves are a cushion against unexpected events. As at the date of Lord Strasburger’s witness statement, the level of reserves was £262,699 which is below the minimum six-month cushion required by the Board.

Lord Strasburger says that BBW is “currently projecting a significant financial deficit for 2025.” The organisation’s fundraising projections for the year are less than the expected costs of its staff and significantly less than BBW’s overall projected costs for the year. Lord Strasburger states that there is a real prospect that the organisation will have to use its reserves to cover its core operational costs and that there is “absolutely no margin for the organisation to absorb any additional costs beyond its core operational costs.” He says that the only funds that BBW can contribute to the present claim must come from separate and bespoke fundraising. A contribution from any other funds is not viable.

Lord Strasburger states:

“From a governance perspective, it would be completely irresponsible for the [BBW] directors to permit [its] reserves to be deployed to meet an adverse costs award and further depleted. It would jeopardise the very existence of the organisation. The Board could not properly authorise that.”

In a witness statement dealing with the proposed cap of £107,700 on the Defendant’s costs liability, Mr Jules Carey (the Claimants’ solicitor) explains that, should such a cap be imposed, the Claimants’ legal representatives would be working at significantly discounted rates. I do not need to set out what solicitors and Counsel charge before any discount.