Court hears judge was distressed after solicitor sued her under data protection laws
A senior costs judge was caused “considerable distress” after being sued by a well-known solicitor advocate in what a court was told was a “dreadful action”, according to evidence heard this week.
Master Jennifer James was sued by Liverpool solicitor Robin Makin under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Mr Makin sought access to personal data he claimed the judge held about him. The claim was brought against Master James and The Transcription Agency, which had also been involved in earlier proceedings.
In Makin v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor, the claim was dismissed after both defendants relied on the judicial exemption. The court subsequently ordered Mr Makin, of Liverpool Legal, to pay the costs of each defendant on the indemnity basis. The order reflected, in part, what the court described as a “grave attempt to besmirch” the reputation of Master James.
Mr Makin is widely known for representing serial killer Ian Brady, one of the perpetrators of the Moors murders. In August, he was ordered to pay The Transcription Agency total costs of £249,776.50 arising from the underlying proceedings.
Embed from Getty Images
The costs payable by Mr Makin to Master James in respect of the main action were later agreed at £153,439.31. This week, however, District Judge Woosnam was asked to determine the further costs arising from the detailed assessment proceedings relating to her bill.
At a hearing at Blackpool Magistrates’ and Civil Court, Paul Joseph, acting for Master James, told the court that the claim had involved exceptionally serious allegations against a serving judge. He said the trial judge had found those allegations to be wholly inappropriate.
Mr Joseph said the proceedings caused his client considerable personal distress, noting that Mr Makin’s initial position was that he owed her nothing at all. He described the claim as a wholesale attempt to prevent Master James from recovering any of the costs she incurred in defending the action.
“It was a dreadful experience for her to have to go through in order to dispense with this appalling action,” Mr Joseph told the court.
Mr Makin challenged the level of costs claimed, arguing that the hourly rates charged by the Government Legal Department and counsel acting for Master James were excessive.
District Judge Woosnam ruled that some of the costs claimed were irrecoverable and reduced others. However, he accepted that the proceedings were of exceptional importance to Master James, given that they involved an attack on her position as a judge.
He said the matter would have been particularly significant to her, both in defending the claim itself and in contesting the subsequent arguments over costs.
The total figure for the detailed assessment proceedings had not been finalised at the time of the hearing but was estimated to exceed £90,000.