The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by Aoife Moore and Alison Morris against a High Court costs order made in joined proceedings involving applications for information from Twitter.
The appeals concerned costs only. Moore and Morris are bringing defamation proceedings against Eoghan Harris over postings on Twitter accounts. They had sought Norwich Pharmacal orders directing Twitter to disclose account information, and their applications were made on the basis that they would pay Twitter’s costs of the motions and of complying with any order.
Twitter did not oppose the making of an order, but disputed some of its terms. The High Court allowed the order to extend beyond the 60-day period Twitter proposed. It ruled for Twitter on two other disputed issues: disclosure relating to retweets of the original posts and whether each tweet should be investigated separately.
The High Court also ordered the plaintiffs to bear Twitter’s costs. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that Twitter’s dispute over the order’s terms should not entitle it to costs. They also raised a public-interest argument about a possible chilling effect on other applicants for Norwich Pharmacal orders, but counsel withdrew that submission at the appeal hearing.
Delivering judgment on 2 October 2023, Mr Justice Noonan said the plaintiffs’ affidavits expressly acknowledged Twitter as an innocent party and undertook to pay its costs. The fact that the parties disputed the precise terms of the order did not release the plaintiffs from that undertaking, he said. He also said the appeal was not a rehearing of the High Court application and that an appellate court should not disturb a discretionary costs order unless it falls outside the range of reasonable decisions or involves a clear error of principle or injustice.
The court found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeals. Ms Justice Faherty agreed, finding no detectable error in the High Court’s assessment. Mr Justice Allen also agreed with the dismissal.
The judgment addressed the costs appeals; it did not decide the underlying defamation proceedings.