Hijazi -v- Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) (order)

CivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionMedia and Communications ListOrder

Claim number: QB-2019-001740

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Media and Communications List

10 December 2024

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson

Between:

Jamal Hijazi
(Claimant)

-v-

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
(aka Tommy Robinson,
Defendant/Respondent)

and

HM Solicitor General
(Applicant)

Order

UPON the court’s order of 28 October 2024

AND UPON that order providing that the defendant shall pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings

AND UPON that order providing the parties with a right to make written submissions on the question of whether there should be a payment on account of the defendant’s liability for costs

AND UPON the defendant, by an application notice dated 3 December 2024, seeking an extension of time within which to file his written submissions pursuant to that order

AND UPON the parties filing written submissions on the question of whether there should be a payment on account of the defendant’s liability for costs, and, if so, in what sum

It is ordered that:

  1. The defendant’s application for an extension of time is granted.
  2. The defendant shall by 4pm on 7 January 2025 pay to the applicant £50,000 on account of his liability to the applicant for costs pursuant to the order of 28 October 2024.
  3. No further order as to costs.

Reasons:

There is a presumption in favour of a payment on account: CPR 44.2(8). I consider it is likely that the applicant will be entitled to recover substantially more than £50,000 when the costs bill is subject to a detailed assessment. The overall amount claimed (£80,350.82) does not appear to be disproportionate having regard to the nature of the issues in the case, and the conduct of the defendant (including (a) not making any admissions until the date of the hearing, so that the applicant had to prepare on the basis that it would be a fully contested hearing, (b) not attending the hearing in July 2024, and (c) raising issues as to service). Notwithstanding the observations made on behalf of the defendant about individual items in the bill of costs, there do not seem to be any items that were clearly unreasonably incurred or which are clearly disproportionate.

I do not consider that the applicant’s incarceration, or his claimed impecuniosity, is a good reason not to order a payment on account. Those factors might make enforcement of the order more difficult if the applicant does not voluntarily pay, but they do not amount to reasons of principle why the order should not be made.

Dated this 10th day of December 2024