KB-2024-004175 - [2025] EWHC 2050 (KB)

By an email to the Court office timed at 5.19 pm on Friday 25^th July Robert Lizar Solicitors invited me to vary the order for Costs that I had made in respect of Mary Ensell and Harry Wade, the 19^th and 20^th Named Defendants. The email explained that Robert Lizar Solicitors do not act for those defendants in the hearing that was listed before me but do act for them in contempt proceedings that had been listed before Stacey J on 28^th July 2025. The email made the following request:

“We write in respect of the Order made today renewing the Injunction and ordering costs of £6,125 against each of the named defendants in the Injunction Proceedings of £6,125, to be paid by 4pm on 8 August 2025.

The reason for this email is that our clients had understood that a settlement had been reached in the Contempt Application, which ensured that no costs would be sought against them in the Injunction Proceedings, as well as the Contempt Application.

It was the Defendant’s understanding that the settlement agreement would be a full and final agreement relating to all financial claims and costs between the parties. The terms of the agreement are described in the Claimant’s skeleton argument as: “The Claimant will undertake not to pursue the Defendants for any financial loss at this time or in the future”.  

On this basis our clients did not attend today’s hearing, as they did not contest the injunction renewal and understood that costs would not be sought against them.

Following the hearing, this matter was raised with the Claimant in an attempt to reach an agreement. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the scope of the settlement agreement reached. The Claimant (copied into this email) does not accept that the settlement reached in the committal application applies to the injunction proceedings (and disputes that the skeleton argument quoted reflects the terms of the agreement). Unfortunately, it does not appear that agreement will be reached between the parties.

The Court clearly made the costs orders today without being informed about or addressed on any of these matters. As stated, had our clients been aware that the Claimants would seek costs they would have attended the hearing. In order to allow for a fair disposal of the costs in the claim we therefore respectfully request that our clients be allowed to make brief submissions on costs in writing to the Court as to why the costs order against them should be set aside, to which the Claimant can of course respond.

We submit that the most proportionate method to address the issue is to vary the order made today to allow for submissions to be made in writing by the Defendants. We understand that the Claimant’s position is that a formal application to vary the costs order should be made by our clients. In our submission this will incur unnecessary expense and delay which is not required and is not proportionate to the issues. We should inform the court that both our clients are each of extremely limited means, they are unable to afford legal representation. Legal aid is not available in relation to the main injunction proceedings and only covers the committal applications. This is a discrete issue that could be resolved proportionately and fairly through short written submissions by both parties.

Should the Court accede to our request, then we would ask for a period of 7 days to serve our client’s submissions, allowing the Claimant a further appropriate period (of no less than 7 days) to respond.”

I do not accept the premise of the email that the non-attendance of the Defendants at the hearing before me was because they did not anticipate an application for costs to be made against them; as I observed in the body of my Judgement they have not engaged with this Claim in any way or at any stage. The opportunity to address the issue of costs was at the hearing before me on 25^th July of which they were fully aware. The Defendants did not take that opportunity and I do not consider it appropriate to now informally set aside or otherwise vary my Order. It is a matter for the Defendant’s whether they now seek to make a formal application to vary with the attendant cost implications of doing so.