Background
8.Petersburg, given on 6 June 2013 (“the Film”). Ms McGuire was the driving force behind the claim. As the proceedings progressed, she became a Third Party and the second claimant in the present action (“Crystal Mirror”) a Fourth Party. 9.On 20 September 2016 I made an order requiring Event 1 to provide security for costs in the sum of £40,000, failing which the claim would be struck out. A significant factor in my making the order was Ms McGuire’s statement to me at the hearing of the application that it was possible for her to raise the £40,000 on behalf of Event 1. 10.The security was not paid by the deadline provided in the order, but Event 1 sought permission to appeal. On 30 May 2017 Kitchin LJ refused permission stating: “The assertion that the claimant’s claim will be stifled by the order is directly contrary to the statement made by Ms McGuire to the judge at the hearing.” 11.Permission to appeal having been refused, I struck out Event 1’s claim by an order dated 3 July 2017. However, I stayed the order because Event 1 had made another application to the Court of Appeal, seeking to re-open the decision to refuse permission to appeal. 12.On 6 February 2018 Kitchin LJ gave a second decision in writing refusing Event 1’s application to reopen his earlier decision. He said: “The judge asked Ms McGuire on a number of occasions [at the hearing of 20 September 2016] whether security could be provided were it to be ordered. She told the judge that it was possible for her to raise the money. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that Ms McGuire’s ability to understand the questions put to her and to answer them was in any way impaired by her anxiety or for any other reason. … The questions were straightforward and the answer to them clear.” 13.Permission to appeal having been finally refused, the stay of the order striking out Event 1’s claim was thereby lifted and the claim was struck out. The First Action did not immediately end because Crimson Flower had a counterclaim. By an order dated 6 November 2018 I gave permission to Crimson Flower to discontinue the counterclaim. Even that did not terminate the First Action because the defendants to the counterclaim, which by this time included Ms McGuire and Crystal Mirror, brought an application for a finding that the Part 20 Claim was fundamentally dishonest within the meaning of CPR 44.16. That application was refused in an order made on the papers dated 19 November 2018. In the reasons given with the order I stated that CPR 44.16 had no bearing and said further: