LiP loses costs challenge over 'no longer instructed' barrister

A litigant who tried to argue that his costs order was agreed by a barrister who was no longer instructed has lost a court challenge.

Fergus Wilson, now representing himself, had objected to a final costs order supposedly agreed with the court because he claimed the barrister negotiating the order had come off the case more than four months previously.

Darryl Allen QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in Ashford Borough Council & Anor v Wilson, said it was clear that the barrister Alexander Deakin had agreed the order and that Wilson was bound by it.

‘There is no evidence at all that the defendant had issued instructions that Mr Deakin was not authorised to agree the draft orders or that there was any restriction at all upon what could be agreed,' Allen said. 'There is no evidence that his instructions or retainer had been terminated. As already set out above, at no stage did the defendant notify the claimants or the court that Mr Deakin was no longer acting for him.’

The court heard that the claimants had obtained a final injunction restraining Wilson from harassing them and those they represent.

Deakin, who had represented Wilson under the direct access scheme, was named on the proposed draft costs order and confirmed on 15 September 2021 that the terms were agreed. There was no suggestion at this time that he was not authorised or did not have instructions to agree the order.

Wilson was bound in the agreement to pay the claimants’ costs of the action, including the costs of interlocutory hearings, on the standard basis up to September 2020 and on the indemnity basis thereafter.

Within days of the order being confirmed, Deakin wrote to the court saying Wilson had said he was no longer instructed and his former client did not agree to the order.

Wilson subsequently claimed that Deakin ceased to be his barrister on 30 April 2021 and he was no longer instructed. The judge ruled that the parties were bound by the agreed costs order and the court should not exercise discretion to let Wilson withdraw from it.

Wilson also objected to the costs involved, submitting that the claimants had brought proceedings ‘motivated by spite and vexatious’ and that they had take a ‘sledgehammer to knock in a tin tack’.

The judge said the litigation was brought ‘solely as a result’ of Wilson’s conduct and that the claimants’ £170,000 costs bill reflected the manner in which he conducted the litigation.

This article is now closed for comment.