Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1952 (QB) (26 June 2019)

Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1952 (QB) (26 June 2019)

The requirement for Ms Desporte to provide a draft charge on her property as security for costs did not stifle her claim or infringe her right of access to a court, as it did not require payment but only provision of security, and was reasonable given her history of unpaid costs orders and the interlinked nature of the claims. The wording and operation of the LCRO were clear, logical, and not overly restrictive.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1952
Parties
Claimant in the Privacy Claim/defendant in the Libel Claim: Gareth Bull; Defendant in the Privacy Claim/claimant in the Libel Claim: Donna Desporte
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Orders of Master Mc Cloud Dated 10 January 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limited Civil Restraint Order, Security for Costs, Right of Access to Court, Misuse of Private Information, Libel
Civil Procedure Media Law Defamation Privacy Limited Civil Restraint Order Security for Costs Right of Access to Court Misuse of Private Information +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gareth Bull

Claimant in the Privacy Claim/defendant in the Libel Claim

Donna Desporte

Defendant in the Privacy Claim/claimant in the Libel Claim

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Orders of Master Mc Cloud Dated 10 January 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order requiring provision of a draft charge on property as a condition to pursue the Libel Claim improperly stifled litigation and infringed Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Limited Civil Restraint Order (LCRO) was overly restrictive or defective in wording

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for Ms Desporte to provide a draft charge on her property as security for costs did not stifle her claim or infringe her right of access to a court, as it did not require payment but only provision of security, and was reasonable given her history of unpaid costs orders and the interlinked nature of the claims. The wording and operation of the LCRO were clear, logical, and not overly restrictive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against paragraph 10 of the Order dismissed; requirement to provide a draft charge on property upheld.
  • Appeal against the Limited Civil Restraint Order dismissed.