Following Terence Wong's success acting for the respondent in Barclay v Craig Leslie Tuck (calling himself Lord De Chanson)  EWHC 1125 (QB), the High Court moved on to consider the appropriate costs order where a committal application fails. On 20th July 2018, Spence J handed down his judgment on costs (Barclay v Tuck (aka Lord De Chanson)  EWHC 1852 (QB)).
To discuss the implications arising from the costs judgment, and how Spence J addressed the law on costs, Terence was interviewed by David Bowden on behalf of Lexis. Addressing the question 'What are the practical implications of this case?', Terence said:
'A claimant’s entitlement to costs in committal proceedings will, foremost, be dependent on whether the claimant successfully establishes that the defendant is in breach of a court order at the time of the substantive hearing. A claimant may ultimately succeed in his objective of securing a defendant’s compliance with a court order, and yet not be awarded their costs at the conclusion of the committal proceedings if the defendant has achieved compliance in the period between the commencement of the committal proceedings and trial.
The judgment reinforces the need for claimants to continually assess their prospects of success, specifically, on their allegations of breach. If a change in circumstances results in a defendant no longer being in breach of a court order, a claimant should consider discontinuing their application to commit to create a more favourable position on costs.'
The full Lexis interview can be read here, or on the Lexis website here (subject to subscription).
The main judgment, dismissing the committal application, is Sir David Rowat Barclay v Tuck (aka Lord De Chanson)  EWHC 1125 (QB).
The main costs judgment, is Sir David Rowat Barclay v Tuck (aka Lord De Chanson)  EWHC 1852 (QB).
The Twitter Feed can be found here.