Introduction
1.This is a judgment made on the papers pursuant to an order dated 5 April 2019. The order followed a hearing on that day at which I considered two applications by the defendants. The first was to strike out these proceedings as an abuse of process and/or to strike out the Particulars of Claim because they did not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The second application was to make a non-party costs order against Ms Ann McGuire. 2.These applications were the latest stage in a long running dispute. Until recently the litigation has been conducted on behalf of the claimants by Ms McGuire, who is a director and shareholder of the claimants. At the hearing on 5 April 2019 for the first time Robert Whittock of counsel appeared for the claimants. He did so under the IP Pro Bono scheme and has apparently continued to advise Ms McGuire since. I commend the public-spirited help Mr Whittock has given to Ms McGuire and I appreciate his written and oral submissions to the court. The defendants were represented by Jeremy Reed. 3.At the hearing I agreed with the defendants that the Particulars of Claim did not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) in that they did not contain a concise statement of the facts on which the claimants rely. They had been drafted by Ms McGuire, who no doubt did her best, but the Particulars were neither concise nor easy to understand. 4.The defendants further argued that the proceedings should be struck out as an abuse of process because the claimants were re-running a claim which had been brought in this court in action no. IP-2016-000048 (“the First Action”). The First Action was struck out by an order dated 3 July 2017. 5.I took the view that since Ms McGuire now had legal advice, she should have the opportunity to consult Mr Whittock further and decide whether Particulars could be drafted which did not lead to an abuse of the process. I gave the claimants the opportunity to file Amended Particulars of Claim, failing which the present claim would be struck out. In the event that Amended Particulars were filed by the deadline imposed, I allowed each side to file brief further skeleton arguments and further ordered that I would reconsider the application to strike out on the papers. 6.I also directed that I would at the same time give judgment on the defendant’s application for a non-party costs order against Ms McGuire. 7.The judgment on the defendant’s two applications follows.