Lodhia v Twelve Trees: High Court orders costs against claimant who discontinued defamation claim amid document authenticity concerns

In a judgement handed down on 18 May 2026, Mr Justice Linden ordered Amar Lodhia to pay the costs of proceedings he brought against Twelve Trees Management Company (Bromley-by-Bow) Limited, its property management agent Urang Group Limited, and three individual directors, following his notice of discontinuance filed on 30 April 2026.

Mr Lodhia, who describes himself as a legal consultant and housing rights advocate, originally pleaded claims in defamation and malicious falsehood against all five defendants arising from a March 2025 letter sent to leaseholders at the Maltings residential estate in East London. The letter criticised his litigation activities, accused him of lying and making baseless allegations, stated he was bankrupt and had no formal legal training, and referred to a previous civil restraint order. By January 2026, he had abandoned all claims in malicious falsehood, discontinued against two of the individual defendants, and reduced the statements complained of from eleven to six. He discontinued the claim in its entirety on 30 April 2026, days after a judicial order raised concerns about the authenticity of documents he had submitted in support of a postponement application.

Applying the presumption under CPR Rule 38.6 and the principles set out in Brookes v HSBC Bank plc [2011], Linden J found no basis to depart from the usual costs consequences of discontinuance. He rejected each of Mr Lodhia's eight arguments in turn, including alleged breaches of the Pre-Action Protocol, a shift in the defendants' position on meaning, remarks made by one defendant at an AGM, and the alleged insolvency of the management company. The judge found that none of these amounted to a relevant change of circumstances or unreasonable conduct on the defendants' part sufficient to displace the presumption.

The court also found against Mr Lodhia on two preliminary procedural arguments. On the question of his bankruptcy, Linden J held that any costs order made against him would not constitute a provable bankruptcy debt, and that the trustees in bankruptcy had no need to be served before costs were determined. On the lasting power of attorney point, the judge declined to accept that Mr Lodhia lacked capacity to conduct proceedings, finding the medical evidence from his treating psychologist fell far short of establishing incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The TTMC defendants were awarded an interim payment on account of costs of £55,000 plus VAT, with Urang receiving £3,600 plus VAT, pending detailed assessment. Linden J noted that the TTMC figure may well increase at detailed assessment given the volume of correspondence, multiple applications, and the late postponement of a January hearing generated by Mr Lodhia's conduct of the litigation.

The judgement also contains extensive directions for third-party evidence. Begbies Traynor, the former trustees in bankruptcy, are required to provide a witness statement confirming the authenticity of several letters produced on their headed notepaper. Dr Myrto Tsakopoulou, Mr Lodhia's treating psychologist, is directed to confirm the provenance of medical letters used to support postponement applications. Mr Joseph Chiffers of JSC Chambers, identified as Mr Lodhia's supervising legal consultant, must provide a statement explaining the nature of that supervision and his involvement in the litigation.

Linden J expressly warned that depending on the contents of those statements, consideration might be given to contempt of court proceedings. A seventeenth witness statement from Mr Lodhia, filed after the hearing, attributed alleged inaccuracies in earlier statements to the inadvertent filing of AI-generated drafts. That explanation was raised for the first time in that statement, and the court noted it sits in direct tension with a subsequent witness statement from a University of Law programme lead, Ms Saloumeh Verrell, whose account materially contradicts Mr Lodhia's evidence on a separate matter.

The costs of the 6 May hearing itself were reserved, with Mr Lodhia given the opportunity to make written submissions before that issue is determined on the papers.