KB-2023-003483 - [2025] EWHC 1799 (KB)

By a claim issued on 19 July 2023 the Claimants (“C1”, “C2”, “C3” and “C4” respectively) brought proceedings for harassment contrary to the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, defamation (libel), malicious falsehood and various privacy-related (Footnote: ¹) claims against the four Defendants (“D1”, “D2”, “D3” and “D4” respectively). It was also alleged that D1 had engaged in conduct in breach of Article 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. D1 is a private individual. The claims against him relied heavily on internet posts on various websites for which it was said D2, D3 and D4 are responsible.

This is my third judgment on the claim, the issues between the Claimants and D4 and D1 having been determined by judgments handed down on, respectively, 31 January 2025 and 11 April 2025: [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) and [2025] EWHC 912 (KB).

The effect of [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) is that D4’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the court succeeded, various applications made by the Claimants were dismissed, and the Claimants were ordered to pay D4 £58,185.50 in costs.

The effect of [2025] EWHC 912 (KB) is that D1, against whom default judgment was ordered on 10 June 2024, was ordered to pay £55,000 in damages to C1, £61,985.99 in damages to C2, £32,500 in damages to C3, £49,119.26 in costs and disbursements to C1, C2 and C3 and £16,781 to the Access to Justice Foundation to reflect pro bono costs.

By an order sealed on 17 April 2025, I approved an order by which the Claimants discontinued their claim against D2, with no order for costs.

On 2 May 2025, the Claimants served a Notice of Discontinuance of their claim on D3. The sole issue remaining in this claim, and the issue which is addressed in this judgment, relates to the costs of that claim, and specifically whether to depart from the general rule set out in CPR 38.6 that a discontinuing claimant is liable for the costs which a defendant has incurred up to the date that the Notice of Discontinuance was served.

The Claimants contend that D3 should pay their costs as they were driven to bring the claim against it and they have emerged successful from the claim, as they have secured their primary objectives in terms of D3 (i) providing them with the information they sought about those responsible for the posts; (ii) agreeing to remove the posts in question; and/or because D3 has behaved unreasonably. Alternatively, they argue that there should be no order as to costs.

The Claimants have mostly represented themselves throughout the proceedings, save that they have sought the assistance of various counsel at particular points. They instructed Dan Stacey of counsel for the hearing on costs relating to D3 on 12 June 2025. At previous hearings, C1 and C2 have had the assistance of an interpreter, but on this occasion C3 (who understands and speaks English) assisted them. C1 and C2 confirmed they were content with that course. As with previous hearings, C4 joined the hearing remotely. D3 was represented by Mr Callus and Ms Pereira, who had previously acted for D4. I am grateful to all counsel for their assistance.