Full Colour Black Limited v The artist known as "Banksy" & Anor

Full Colour Black Limited v The artist known as "Banksy" & Anor

The proceedings were pursued in a manner and for purposes unreasonable to a high degree, namely to exert pressure by leveraging Banksy's concern for anonymity, rather than for genuine vindication by adjudication. This conduct takes the case outside the norm and justifies an order for indemnity costs against FCB from 10 October 2023. However, the threshold for a non-party costs order against Mr Gallagher is not met, as there is insufficient evidence of him being the real party or acting with serious impropriety or bad faith.

Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: Full Colour Black Limited (trading as Brandalised); Defendant/applicant: The artist known as "Banksy"; Defendant/applicant: Pest Control Office Limited; Second Respondent: Andrew Gallagher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel/defamation) / Post Discontinuance, Costs Determination
Outcome
Indemnity costs awarded against FCB from 10 October 2023; non-party costs order against Mr Gallagher refused.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Non Party Costs Orders, Abuse of Process, Anonymity in Proceedings, Copyright, Trade Marks
Defamation Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Costs Indemnity Costs Non Party Costs Orders Abuse of Process Anonymity in Proceedings +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Full Colour Black Limited (trading as Brandalised)

Claimant/first Respondent

The artist known as "Banksy"

Defendant/applicant

Pest Control Office Limited

Defendant/applicant

Andrew Gallagher

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (libel/defamation) / Post Discontinuance, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the claimant following discontinuance of a libel claim
  2. 2 Whether a non-party costs order should be made against the claimant's sole director/shareholder
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process or were pursued for an improper collateral purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were pursued in a manner and for purposes unreasonable to a high degree, namely to exert pressure by leveraging Banksy's concern for anonymity, rather than for genuine vindication by adjudication. This conduct takes the case outside the norm and justifies an order for indemnity costs against FCB from 10 October 2023. However, the threshold for a non-party costs order against Mr Gallagher is not met, as there is insufficient evidence of him being the real party or acting with serious impropriety or bad faith.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs awarded against FCB from 10 October 2023; non-party costs order against Mr Gallagher refused.

Orders

  • FCB to pay the Defendants’ costs from 10 October 2023 on the indemnity basis.
  • Application for a non-party costs order against Andrew Gallagher refused.