X v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor [2023] EWHC 2283 (KB) (15 September 2023)

X v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor [2023] EWHC 2283 (KB) (15 September 2023)

The claimant's conduct in pursuing unfounded and aggressive allegations against both defendants and their legal representatives, as well as his approach to the litigation, was out of the norm and justified an order for indemnity costs. There was no misconduct by the defendants to justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event. Interim payments on account of costs were appropriate based on the defendants' costs budgets.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2283 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: X; First Defendant: The Transcription Agency LLP; Second Defendant: Master Jennifer James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Data Protection Act Claim / Post Trial, Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimant ordered to pay both defendants' costs on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Subject Access Request (sar), Judicial Exemption, Costs Orders, Indemnity Costs, Disclosure, Legal Professional Privilege
Data Protection Civil Procedure Judicial Review Subject Access Request (sar) Judicial Exemption Costs Orders Indemnity Costs Disclosure +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Claimant

The Transcription Agency LLP

First Defendant

Master Jennifer James

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment Following Data Protection Act Claim / Post Trial, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' reliance on the judicial exemption justified withholding personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the claimant or defendants warranted departure from the general rule that costs follow the event
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs were justified against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conduct in pursuing unfounded and aggressive allegations against both defendants and their legal representatives, as well as his approach to the litigation, was out of the norm and justified an order for indemnity costs. There was no misconduct by the defendants to justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event. Interim payments on account of costs were appropriate based on the defendants' costs budgets.

Court Disposition

Claimant ordered to pay both defendants' costs on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the costs of each defendant on the indemnity basis.
  • Claimant to make interim payment of £49,731.48 (90% of budgeted costs) and £11,552.80 (50% of incurred costs) to the first defendant.