Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns the costs arising from three jurisdiction motions previously adjudicated in a principal judgment. The motions involved claims by three plaintiffs against digital entities identified as the first named defendants. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the High Court's jurisdiction to hear their claims. Following the principal judgment, three issues related to costs arose: the costs of the jurisdiction motions themselves, costs from a procedural call-over in July 2024, and costs related to discovery motions. The court addresses these cost issues in light of statutory provisions, court rules, and prior rulings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the costs of the three jurisdiction motions should follow the event and be awarded to the successful defendants.
- Whether costs associated with the call-over on 25th July 2024 and related procedural applications should be awarded to the defendants and paid forthwith.
- Whether costs related to the discovery motions should be ordered to be paid forthwith or left for agreement or adjudication.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The plaintiffs sought an adjournment of the jurisdiction motions hearing on the basis that a further replying affidavit and discovery were required, arguing these were outside the previously directed timetable.
Defendants' Arguments
- The defendants opposed the adjournment application, noting it was made late during the call-over and consumed significant court time.
- They requested costs associated with the call-over application and subsequent procedural steps be paid forthwith pursuant to the relevant court rules.
- The defendants contended that the costs reserved at the call-over were appropriate given the stringent case management and timing of the plaintiffs' application.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Sections 168 and 169(1) |
Governs the awarding of costs and the principle that costs generally follow the event unless the court orders otherwise. |
Applied as the statutory basis for awarding costs to the successful defendants on the jurisdiction motions. |
| Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (RSC 1986), Order 99, Rules 2 and 3 |
Procedural rules regarding costs, including the power to order payment of costs forthwith. |
Used to justify ordering immediate payment of costs related to the call-over application and related procedural steps. |
| Practice Direction HC125 |
Provides guidance on when costs may be ordered to be paid forthwith, especially where liability is undisputed. |
Supported the court’s decision to order payment of costs associated with the call-over application pending adjudication. |
| Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, Article 8(1) and Article 25 |
Defines jurisdictional rules applicable to the High Court’s authority to hear claims involving parties in EU member states. |
Formed the legal basis for setting aside service of proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by confirming the default principle that costs follow the event, applying the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986. As the defendants were entirely successful in the jurisdiction motions, they were entitled to their costs, including reserved costs. The court acknowledged the parties’ agreement that costs should follow the event and that costs orders could be stayed pending appeal.
Regarding the call-over application on 25th July 2024, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ request for adjournment was late and consumed significant court time. The High Court List Judge had reserved costs related to this application. The court reasoned that these costs were separate from the outcome of the jurisdiction motions and should be payable forthwith to the defendants, pursuant to Order 99, rule 2(5) of the RSC 1986 and Practice Direction HC125, given the circumstances and the absence of dispute on liability.
On the discovery motions, the court noted a previous costs order in favour of the defendants for one motion and declined to revisit or order immediate payment of costs for the remaining two motions, leaving the recovery process to agreement or adjudication.
The court proposed specific orders setting aside service of the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to the relevant EU regulation articles and Rules of the Superior Courts, alongside cost orders consistent with the analysis above.
Holding and Implications
The court granted the defendants the costs of the jurisdiction motions, including reserved costs, to be adjudicated if not agreed, with execution stayed pending any appeal.
The court ordered that costs associated with the call-over application and related procedural steps be paid forthwith by the plaintiffs to the defendants, with no stay on this costs order in the event of appeal.
The court declined to order immediate payment of costs for the remaining discovery motions, leaving these for agreement or adjudication.
The court also set aside service of the proceedings in each of the three cases on the basis that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under the applicable EU regulations.
The direct effect of this decision is to impose costs liabilities on the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants in relation to the jurisdiction and call-over applications, while preserving the defendants’ right to costs on discovery motions through the usual processes. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory and procedural rules to the facts.