Case No. EWHC-755-(IPEC)

31.The order sought is that, unless the Defendants make the interim payment by 4pm seven days from the date of the order, the Defence of all Defendants shall be struck out. The application is supported by a witness statement by the Claimants’ solicitor, Mr Turley of Mc Daniel & Co Solicitors. Mr Turley also wrote to the Court on 14 March 2023 responding on the Claimants’ behalf to various points made in the evidence of Mrs Claire Quinn (the Third Defendant).32.As far as concerns the ‘unless’ order, Mr Turley’s evidence is that:“The Defendant’s argued at the hearing against the interim costs awarded to the Claimant’s. Those arguments were rejected by the Court. They subsequently sought payment of those costs in instalments, this again was rejected by the Court, and was indeed rejected on two occasions when the Defendants sought to get around the decision of the Court through the filing of N245’s.”33.The Claimants’ position is that the Defendants are in breach of the Order and that this is unfair to the Claimants, not least because the Defendants have stated that “they had no intention of paying the costs order but would instead seek to enter bankruptcy proceedings”. In the circumstances, the Claimants’ position is that they face extreme prejudice; that they should not be forced to incur further costs in pursuing the case as the Defendants have not paid the interim costs; and that the only possible course is for the Court to make an order in the terms sought.34.The evidence of Mrs Claire Quinn (the Third Defendant) reiterated the Defendants’ position that they are in a precarious financial position, having neither assets nor savings, and that it is not possible for them to make the interim costs payment unless they can do so in instalments. Mrs Quinn states that if the Defendants are forced to pay all the costs awarded at once they will be forced into bankruptcy proceedings. She further states that the way in which the Defendants’ position has been described by the Claimants is inaccurate and unfair.35.Neither party referred to the legal position or to any authorities which might be relevant.36.The Claimants appeared to regard it as self-evident that any failure to abide by any court order should inevitably be followed by the sanction of an ‘unless’ order, and asked the Court to make that order without a hearing. As mentioned above, that request was reiterated in Mr Turley’s letter of 14 March 2023.