Further interlocutory judgment of the Tribunal on an application by the Defendants for security for costs under Rule 45 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal was not satisfied that it was just to make an order for security for costs in favour of the Defendants in particular because, at that stage in the proceedings, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that there was a substantial likelihood that the Defendants would, in due course, benefit from a costs order in their favour.
On the contrary, the Claimants had, at first sight, a good claim and the only reason for awarding costs against the Claimants would be if “passing on” was a good defence to the claims. Therefore the Tribunal considered it just that the possible risk as to costs should be borne by the Defendants who were before the Tribunal’s infringers of a public law prohibition rather than the Claimants in whose favour liability was, at least prima facie, established.
