King v Linney (No 3)

The plaintiffs in King v Linney (No 3) sought to revisit a costs order made following their unsuccessful challenge to the retainer of the defendants' solicitor. The plaintiffs contended that the costs order was based on misapprehended facts, specifically that the original challenge to the retainer was made on the assumption that the defendants' solicitor had been given confidential information, an assumption that was ultimately found to be false. The plaintiffs argued that their challenge was ill-considered due to this misunderstanding and sought to have the costs order revisited on this basis.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' application to revisit the costs order was appropriate. This involved examining the basis on which the original costs order was made and whether there were grounds for reconsideration given the plaintiffs' new contention that the order was based on misapprehended facts. The court needed to assess whether the plaintiffs' application was an abuse of process or a legitimate attempt to correct an error.

The court found that the plaintiffs' application to revisit the costs order was not well-founded. The court determined that the costs order was appropriate given the circumstances. The plaintiffs had proceeded with their challenge to the retainer based on a false assumption, which led to an ill-considered legal action. The court held that the costs order was justified as the plaintiffs' challenge was not well-founded. Consequently, the application to revisit the costs order was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The costs order remained in place, and the plaintiffs were not granted permission to revisit the matter. The court emphasised that the plaintiffs' application was an abuse of process, given that the challenge to the retainer was based on a misunderstanding of the facts.