Esther Baker has had a bad day in court.

The first interim hearing in Baker v Hemming occurred today, and Esther Baker has been ordered to pay the whole costs of the hearing as well as re-write all of her court pleadings. Furthermore, Hemming has been given leave to commence detailed costs assessment immediately.

Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel for saying she lied about her allegations of Rape. Hemming has counterclaimed for libel over a tweet he says is an allegation that he raped her. Hemming had applied to strike out Baker’s claim and her Defence to his counterclaim.

The hearing, which was open to the public, took most of the day with various breaks for advice and production of documents. Hemming was represented by barrister Richard Owen Thomas of 3PB chambers. In Hemming v Wilmer I assisted formally as McKenzie Friend but here I sat with them and provided informal support.

Baker acted in person but was assisted by Mark Watts, former editor of Exaro and currently Coordinator at the Freedom of Information Centre. At the start of the hearing he sat next to her like a McKenzie Friend but after a brief discussion with the judge he sat behind her and provided informal support. Watts accompanied Baker for more-or-less the whole day.

One interesting aspect of the case is the fact that both sides were supported by bloggers. I have been upfront about my support for John Hemming but felt I should make clear the extent of Watts’ support for Baker. Barbara Hewson also attended the hearing as an observer although she was not as closely aligned with any side.

At the start of the hearing Baker applied for an adjournment claiming she now has pro-bono support to amend her pleadings. This was granted, but because her pleadings were clearly deficient she was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing and the amended pleadings. She will be liable for those costs regardless of how the rest of the case proceeds, whatever the outcome. Baker has been given a tight timescale to file amended the pleadings. Baker had sought an initial decision on meaning, but a meaning hearing was not ordered. Baker has also deleted the allegedly defamatory tweet.

There was some discussion about the form of the costs order that should be made. Midway through the hearing, we feared it would be only a partial costs order, or an interim order for just over £5,000. However at the end Hemming obtained permission to commence detaied costs assessment immediately. This is a separate process where the court has ordered costs in principle where the precise amount is decided.

Oddly, Baker and Mark Watts appeared relieved at avoiding immediate payment of £5,000-or-so. This struck me as strange because, whilst costs assessment can take months, when pursued efficiently it can lead to a swift result. Baker could be looking at an order for the full amount in the region of £10,000 within weeks.

The ruling is a heavy blow to Baker, who also has to file a response to allegations in the separate harassment claim against her by the proven victim of child abuse known as ‘Z’. Her response in that claim must be filed by the 18th. The result is a sweet one for this blogger personally. In both cases Hemming and ‘Z’ had (at my urging) told Ms Baker the correct procedure for various matters and she had ignored their advice. Now she is (literally) counting the cost.

The case is ongoing and the merits have not been decided. Nothing in this ruling prevents either party prevailing, or reaching a settlement. Nothing in the ruling means either party has proved anything on the underlying allegations of sexual abuse. Those matters are still yet to be determined.