40,000 Reasons to Praise the Lord: Smith v Whitbread Group PLC

A case update. I am suing a local pub in Welwyn Garden City, the Stanborough, pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 in the County Court. The named Defendant is the owner Whitbread Group PLC. On 6 January 2021 the court heard an application in public (with a member of the public in attendance), by the Defendant to strike out my claim. The application failed, leaving Whitbread to sip up most of their costs bill of over £38,000. They were instead ordered to pay my costs of £2,012 within 28 days, making a net loss of around £40,000 – perhaps a little less as some costs may apply to the trial. The costs of the interlocutory application are extinguished, meaning barring appeals, they will never get most of the £38K back even if they win at trial. Oops.

Picture of the Stanborough Pub

The Stanborough Pub, Welwyn Garden City, under darkened skies.

There are a number of legitimate public interest concerns about the case, the pub and the way the Defence has so far been conducted. For example, the average costs of an entire fast track county court case are around £15,000. The Defendant in this case tried to claim nearly £40K for a 3 hour hearing then when they failed, actually tried to argue it was unreasonable of me to seek my costs of legal advice! The judge, DDJ Octavia Knox Cartwright Ordered them to pay my costs instead and did not subtract a penny from my costs schedule.

The judge rejected the application by Whitbread to strike out my original pleadings, and their application to grant summary judgement on those pleadings. She also gave me permission to modify the pleadings by adding three half sentences. As the other side resisted my application, they were ordered to pay my costs. They can claim costs of replying to the three new half sentences, but reasonable costs arising from these are likely to be de minimis and as with all costs these can be assessed by a judge if Whitbread try to claim more. The judge held my claim has a, ‘realistic’ prospect of success.

As readers will know, I am legally qualified and have passed the LL.M LPC with a Commendation. Although I have not sought to use my LPC to practice as a solicitor, I have 10 years experience as a McKenzie Friend. In this case however, I sought a second opinion from a barrister as a sanity check on my work. I cannot share that advice as it would waive privilege, but what I can say is that I have been indemnified by a kindly philanthropist. This is a wealthy individual who considers the case has merit and is in the public interest, and has signed an agreement to pick up the tab if I lose. They have seen the advice, and are not feeling very concerned.

I am preparing a much longer article about the case because the effect of a public hearing is to put the entire bundle into the public domain under the collateral use rule. As a Christian I felt I should share this article with gratitude, but before publishing an article with more detail I want to give the Defendants pause to think this through and seek an amicable resolution.

Share Button