A solicitor advocate has been ordered to pay almost £250,000 in costs after a failed lawsuit against the Transcription Agency and a senior costs judge.
The solicitor launched proceedings in 2021, under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR. He sought access to personal data he claimed was held by the Transcription Agency and senior Costs Judge Jennifer James. The defendants successfully argued that the material fell within the judicial exemption, and the case was ultimately dismissed.
In the initial judgement, the solicitor was not only unsuccessful in pursuing the data claim but was also criticised by the court for making what was described as a “grave attempt to besmirch” Judge James’ reputation.
A Costly Proceeding
Deputy Costs Judge Lightman dealt with the detailed assessment of the defendant’s costs over two hearings, first of which in November 2023 and then in June 2024. He had challenged nearly every line of the Transcription Agency’s costs bill, which amounted to almost 1,400 items.
Judge Lightman assessed the bill at a total of £177,938.46, alongside an interest of £16,154.64. On top of this, he was ordered to cover the agency’s costs of the assessment itself, amounting to £46,541.40, and two additional schedules for reserved costs, £6,320 from October 2023 and £2,822 from July 2024.
In total, the solicitor was ordered to pay £249,776.50.
Having already made four payments on account totalling £240,731.21 between September 2023 and mid-2024, he has just over £9,000 left to pay within 14 days of the order.
Further Costs Still to Come
The solicitor’s liabilities do not end there. He also faces a detailed assessment of Cost Judge James’ bill from the same case. That process is due to run later in the year, with both sides represented by senior counsel.
The ruling leaves him with a significant financial liability and the prospect of further costs assessments in the months to come. The case has attracted attention not only because of the solicitor’s past profile for representing one of the UK’s most notorious criminals, but also because of the rare circumstances in which a lawyer pursued a GDPR claim against a judicial figure, coupled with the ensuing costs consequences.
