Independent News and Media (Motions) (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This supplemental judgment arises from a principal judgment delivered on 18 September 2020 concerning an application under section 748 of the Companies Act 2014 involving Company A. The principal judgment granted several individuals leave to use certain affidavits and exhibits (“the disputed material”) originally filed in the context of an application to appoint inspectors to investigate Company A.

The moving parties intend to use the disputed material in separate proceedings alleging that an examination of Company A’s data breached their rights, including their right to privacy. These subsequent proceedings are referred to as the “proceedings alleging breach of privacy.” The respondent, Mr. Leslie Buckley, disputes the allegations and intends to contest those proceedings fully.

This supplemental judgment addresses two main issues: the form of costs orders related to the motions decided in the principal judgment, and additional applications for leave to use the disputed material in other proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate allocation and execution of costs orders arising from the motions heard on 28 July 2020?
2. Should a stay be imposed on the enforcement of the costs orders pending the determination of the related proceedings alleging breach of privacy?
3. Should additional applicants be granted leave to use the disputed material for their own proceedings?

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Mr. Buckley contends that the execution of the costs orders should be stayed until the related proceedings alleging breach of privacy are resolved.
• He formally opposes the additional applications for leave to use the disputed material but does not add new arguments beyond those made in earlier opposition.

Moving Parties' Arguments

• The parties who sought leave to use the disputed material argue that they are entitled to recover costs against Mr. Buckley as the unsuccessful party in the motions.
• They contend that Mr. Buckley’s opposition increased costs unnecessarily, justifying an order against him.
• Applicants Mr. Webb and Mr. Godson seek leave to use the disputed material in their respective proceedings; Mr. Webb does not seek costs against the respondents.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first determined that the motions heard on 28 July 2020 should be treated as resulting in final orders for costs purposes, as no further hearings involving those parties are anticipated. The moving parties were “entirely successful” in their applications for leave to use the disputed material, while Mr. Buckley was the unsuccessful party due to his opposition, which increased costs.

The court acknowledged that the application for leave would have been necessary regardless of opposition but found that Mr. Buckley’s resistance was a significant factor in escalating costs, justifying an order for him to pay those costs.

Even if the orders were interlocutory rather than final, the court noted that under the Rules of the Superior Courts and the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, it is obliged to determine costs unless it would be unjust not to do so.

Regarding the requested stay on costs enforcement, the court applied the test from Permanent TSB v. Skoczylas, which requires a showing that a stay is necessary in the interests of justice. The court found no such necessity here because:

• There was no evidence that enforcing the costs order would impair Mr. Buckley’s ability to finance his defence in the related proceedings.
• The costs were modest, relating to a short High Court hearing and written submissions.
• The connection between the motions and the related proceedings alleging breach of privacy was remote; success in those proceedings would not vindicate Mr. Buckley’s opposition to the motions.

On additional applications for leave to use the disputed material, the court applied the principles from the principal judgment. It found that the applicants, based on their legitimate interests connected to Company A and the INM 19 spreadsheet, should be granted leave. Mr. Buckley’s opposition was noted but not found to justify refusal.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDERED that the moving parties in the three motions heard on 28 July 2020 are entitled to recover their costs from Mr. Buckley. These costs include reserved costs, costs of the hearing, and any written submissions, to be adjudicated by the Office of the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator if not agreed.

Leave was granted to the additional applicants to use the disputed material for their proceedings against Company A and/or Mr. Buckley. A costs order was made in favour of one applicant, while no costs order was made against Mr. Buckley for the other applicant who did not seek costs.

A stay was placed on the costs orders only pending any appeal to the Court of Appeal or application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The execution of costs orders was explicitly not stayed pending the outcome of the related proceedings alleging breach of privacy.

The decision directly affects the parties by clarifying costs liability and the scope of leave to use disputed material but does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing principles regarding costs and stays.