FD25P00554 - [2025] EWHC 2878 (Fam)

No pre-action correspondence was received from TML, either prior to TML issuing its application or once TML had been provided with the details of the Trust in the directions order made by the court and served on TML on 5 September 2025.

Upon the Trust being made aware of the application by TML the Trust promptly indicated by 8 September 2025, through the Skeleton Argument provided by Mr Learmonth, that it did not object to TML being provided with copies of the orders, subject to certain redactions.

It is clear from the hearing of its application that TML were neutral as to the nature and extent of the redactions sought by the Trust, as outlined in the Skeleton Argument provided by Mr Learmonth.

In the circumstances, it was clear from the afternoon of 8 September 2025 that the matter was capable of being dealt with by consent but TML made no effort to compromise the matter, necessitating an attended hearing.

The only success achieved by TML was the disclosure of orders that the Trust and Ms Rayner were in any event prepared to disclose, subject only to redactions, on which TML expressed itself to be neutral.

The application has caused the Trust to incur legal costs that must be paid out of damages awarded to a vulnerable child and, in due course, adult for the purpose of meeting future welfare needs. In these circumstances, the weight to be accorded when determining costs to the public interest in the media being able to report is diminished.

This is not an ordinary situation of contentious litigation. The Trust is an ‘innocent party’ to the application in circumstances where it is required to be served to protect the interest of the child within the litigation.

It would be unjust in the foregoing circumstances for the damages awarded to a vulnerable child for the purpose of meeting future welfare needs to be diminished by reason of the actions of an organisation pursuing a private commercial interest, namely the sale of newspapers.

The application by TML on 5 September 2025 was listed at short notice on 9 September 2025. In the circumstances, there was no proper opportunity to compromise the matter ahead of the hearing on 9 September 2025.

The issues raised by TML’s application required to be ventilated before the court.

There were matters of contention that were not decided in favour of the Trust and the balance of success falls in TML’s favour.

The application concerned matters of obvious public interest in circumstances where other press organisations also sought to cover the story. It would not be just for TML to have to bear the costs of the Trust in circumstances where it acted in the public interest.

The proper order is, accordingly, no order as to costs.