Background
The High Court had previously dismissed Faiz Siddiqui’s judicial-review challenge to a Financial Ombudsman Service decision concerning legal-expenses insurance coverage. On 3 July 2026, the court ordered Siddiqui to pay the Financial Ombudsman Service’s costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £25,000 payment on account by 24 July. The court rejected his request to reconsider the substantive judgment and found no sufficient reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
After the court refused permission to appeal the substantive ruling, Siddiqui applied for an immediate stay of the costs order pending his proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal. He relied principally on a letter from his treating psychiatrist, who said that enforcement could cause severe psychiatric regression, create a risk of heart attack or stroke, and impair Siddiqui’s ability to pursue the appeal. Siddiqui did not seek permission to appeal the costs order or the payment on account, provide evidence of his financial means, or identify any enforcement action already taken by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice McKendrick refused the stay. Applying the balance-of-harm approach and CPR 83.7(4)(a), the court found insufficient evidence of special circumstances making enforcement inexpedient. It gave little weight to the psychiatrist’s letter because it was not a CPR Part 35-compliant report, did not include the instructions given, did not explain the basis or timing of the assessment, and did not establish the psychiatrist’s qualification to assess cardiovascular risk.
The court also rejected the contention that payment or enforcement would stifle the appeal. Siddiqui had not challenged the costs order on appeal, disclosed his assets and income, or shown that he could not pay. The court noted that he could still seek additional time and staged payments supported by full financial disclosure, or renew a properly evidenced stay application in the Court of Appeal. Although invited to certify the application as totally without merit, the judge declined to do so in light of Siddiqui’s asserted ill health.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to stay a costs order must provide reliable evidence of the alleged harm and cannot rely on unsupported or procedurally deficient medical assertions.
- An argument that enforcement will stifle an appeal is weakened where the applicant has not challenged the costs order itself or made full and frank disclosure of financial means.
- The court left open the possibility of staged payment or a renewed stay application supported by proper financial and medical evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidential demands placed on litigants seeking to suspend enforcement because of health risks. Even serious asserted risks will not justify a stay unless the evidence explains its factual and professional basis and connects the proposed enforcement to the claimed harm.
It also confirms that vulnerability and limited means do not, without adequate proof, displace the ordinary enforcement of a costs order. Courts may accommodate hardship through extensions or staged payments, but applicants must substantiate their finances and pursue the correct appellate challenge.