The High Court has given judgment on costs in a claim for harassment, libel, malicious falsehood and various privacy related claims. This is Hill J’s third judgment on the claim and concerned the remaining issue of costs between the Claimants and the Third Defendant, Gatechina Inc.
Following the Claimants’ service of a Notice of Discontinuance on the Third Defendant, the issue for determination at the Hearing was whether to depart from the general rule set out in CPR 38.6 that a discontinuing claimant is liable for the costs which a defendant has incurred up to the date that the Notice of Discontinuance was served.
Hill J held that there was no good reason for displacing the presumption in CPR 38.6 and accordingly that the Claimants pay the Third Defendant’s costs incurred up to the date that the Notice of Discontinuance was served, and further held that the Claimants be ordered to pay the Third Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the Hearing.
5RB’s Greg Callus (leading) and Katya Pereira act for the Third Defendant, instructed by Greenberg Traurig LLP. Greg and Katya previously successfully represented the Fourth Defendant in these proceedings ([2025] EWHC 158 (KB)).
