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 over her property as security for costs did not stifle her access to court and was justified given her repeated non-payment of costs and the interlinked nature of the claims. The LCRO was clear, logical, and not overly restrictive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1952 (QB)
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 / Judgment on Appeal Against Procedural Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Copyright Infringement, Libel, Civil Restraint Orders, Costs Orders, Access to Court, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Defamation Misuse of Private Information Copyright Infringement Libel Civil Restraint Orders +3 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 / Judgment on Appeal Against Procedural Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requiring payment of costs or provision of a charge as a condition to proceed stifles access to court under Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Limited Civil Restraint Order (LCRO) imposed was overly restrictive or defective in wording

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for Ms Desporte to provide a draft charge over her property as security for costs did not stifle her access to court and was justified given her repeated non-payment of costs and the interlinked nature of the claims. The LCRO was clear, logical, and not overly restrictive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against requirement to pay costs as a condition to proceed allowed to the extent conceded by respondent
  • Requirement to provide a draft charge over property as security for costs upheld