Bull v Desporte

Bull v Desporte

The requirement for Ms Desporte to provide a draft charge on her property as security for costs in the Libel Claim was reasonable, did not stifle her access to court, and was consistent with procedural rules. The wording and operation of the Limited Civil Restraint Order were logical, workable, and not overly restrictive.

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 Order of Master Mc Cloud Dated 10 January 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Copyright Infringement, Libel, Civil Restraint Orders, Costs Orders, Access to Court
Civil Procedure Defamation Privacy Law Misuse of Private Information Copyright Infringement Libel Civil Restraint Orders Costs Orders +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 4
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 Order of Master Mc Cloud Dated 10 January 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 10 of the Order improperly stifled Ms Desporte's litigation by requiring payment of costs or provision of a charge to pursue her Libel Claim
  2. 2 Whether the Limited Civil Restraint Order (LCRO) imposed on Ms Desporte 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 in the Libel Claim was reasonable, did not stifle her access to court, and was consistent with procedural rules. The wording and operation of the Limited Civil Restraint Order were logical, workable, and not overly restrictive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against paragraph 10 of the Order dismissed
  • Appeal against the Limited Civil Restraint Order dismissed