The High Court has awarded CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona their costs of three discovery applications, including any reserved costs, after refusing a request to postpone the costs decision until related jurisdiction motions are heard.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled on 30 October 2024 that the court could justly decide liability for the discovery costs at this stage. The discovery applications had been refused, leaving the plaintiffs unsuccessful in the categories of documents they sought.
The applications concerned contracts governing the relationship between CCC Essen and Meta or Facebook under which content moderators were engaged, and policies and procedures for the moderation work. In the Yasar case, the documents were sought to help the plaintiff respond to matters raised in CCC Essen’s application to set aside service on jurisdiction grounds.
For the plaintiffs, counsel asked the court to reserve the discovery costs until it dealt with the jurisdiction motions. The submissions referred to the plaintiffs’ view that Meta exercised a “unique and comprehensive degree of control” over the moderators’ work, and challenged statements in an affidavit about Meta’s contact with moderators, training and supervision. Those points were presented as the plaintiffs’ submissions; the costs ruling did not determine the disputed factual questions.
CCC Essen opposed postponement and sought its costs, having succeeded in resisting discovery. The judge said that costs of an interlocutory application should generally be determined when that application is decided, where it is possible to do so justly. He found no basis to reserve the discovery costs to the later jurisdiction proceedings.
The court ordered CCC Essen and CCC Barcelona to receive their costs against the plaintiffs in the three discovery applications. If the amount is not agreed, it is to be adjudicated by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator. The ruling also directed that, in Yasar’s case, the costs due to the first named defendant be paid once determined, whether by agreement or adjudication.
The ruling did not decide the jurisdiction challenges. The judge said the jurisdiction issue was likely to be heard in January or February 2025, subject to a precise date being fixed.