A costs judge was ‘caused considerable distress’ by a renowned solicitor advocate who launched a ‘dreadful action’ against her, a court has heard.
Master Jennifer James was sued by Liverpool solicitor Robin Makin under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR, seeking personal data she held about him. James and The Transcription Agency, which was also sued, relied on the judicial exemption and Makin’s claim was dismissed.
In Makin v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor, the solicitor, of Liverpool Legal, was ordered to pay the costs of each defendant on the indemnity basis, in part because of his ‘grave attempt to besmirch’ the reputation of Costs Judge James.
Makin - most famous for representing serial killer Ian Brady, the Moors murderer - had been ordered in August to pay The Transcription Agency £249,776.50 in total costs.
The costs payable by Makin to James in respect of the main action was agreed in the sum of £153,439.31. But this week District Judge Woosnam was deciding how much Makin had to pay James for detailed assessment proceedings over her bill.
At Blackpool Magistrates & Civil Court, Paul Joseph, for James, said: ‘This was a case in which Mr Makin had chosen to make the most serious of allegations against a serving judge, which the trial judge found were wholly inappropriate. This was a matter which caused my client considerable distress and Mr Makin’s starting point was that he owed absolutely nothing at all, not a single penny. This was a wholesale attack on the ability of the second defendant to recover anything at all in respect of costs she incurred in defending an action.'
‘It was a dreadful experience for her to have to go through in order to dispense with this appalling action,’ Joseph said.
Makin argued that the hourly rates being claimed by James’s representatives from the government legal department and counsel were too high.
Woosnam declared some costs claimed by James irrecoverable and reduced others, but said: ‘In reality, there could be little of more importance to her because this is an assault on her position as a judge, which she had to defence in these proceedings and then fight the argument over the amount of costs to be paid. Bearing in mind she is a costs judge, that would be, no doubt, of very great importance to her.’
The total costs figure for the detailed assessment was still being calculated but was estimated to be just over £90,000.
