A litigant who made baseless allegations about a judge’s honesty is likely to end up paying around £80,000 in indemnity costs.

The unnamed individual also ‘repeatedly goaded’ Government Legal Department lawyers representing Master Jennifer James to the extent that they complained of feeling harassed. According to a judgment, ‘X’ made unfounded assaults on the professional competence of solicitors acting against him, embarking on an ‘aggressive pursuit’ about their conduct and accusing them of having a ‘staggering ignorance’ of the civil procedure rules.

In X v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor, Mrs Justice Farbey ordered that the claimant pay indemnity costs, concluding that his litigation conduct had been out of the norm.

The court heard that the claimant had challenged the refusal of Master James and court reporting service The Transcription Agency to provide him with personal data under a subject access request. Neither the judge nor the company provided the data, relying on the judicial exemption under the Data Protection Act 2018. 

Following a three-day costs hearing, Farbey upheld the defendants’ reliance on the exemption and dismissed X’s claim for relief. She noted that the claimant filed a bundle of 680 pages in advance and an extra 217 pages of documents on the morning of the hearing.

The judge found no grounds for the claimant to avoid paying the transcription company’s costs. The court heard there was an ‘unfounded assault’ on the solicitors representing the company, and in written and oral submissions the claimant’s representative portrayed the company as ‘falling prey to the bad influence’ of Master James.

In relation to the master, the judge found that the claimant and his representatives pursued a ‘disputatious litigation strategy’.

The claimant criticised the costs master for not declaring proceedings to the lord chief justice and for failing to engage meaningfully in the litigation. The judge made clear this second criticism was ‘not correct’ and that she had in fact filed an acknowledge of service and a defence.

Farbey added: ‘The claimant has throughout the litigation made baseless allegations against [Master James] which imply that she has been dishonest and behaved improperly.

‘The claimant and those who advise him know that the second defendant’s career depends on integrity, honesty and promoting the course of public justice. To insinuate without any evidence that she would act in a way that perverts rather than promotes justice warrants this court’s disapproval by the award of indemnity costs.’

She ordered the claimant should pay 90% of the translation company’s budgeted costs of almost £50,000, and half of its incurred costs of £11,500. She also ordered the claimant pay 90% of Master James’ budgeted costs of £27,500 and half of her incurred costs of £10,000.