Neil Wilby Media

Paul Ponting, 55, a controversial, self-styled corruption advocate and untrained ‘legal expert’ from Ormskirk, West Lancashire, and his wife, Anna Ponting, 53 (both pictured above), have eventually, if reluctantly, paid the £1,700 costs ordered against them by the High Court in July 2025.

The payment, made by bank transfer on Thursday 4th September, came two days after the court-ordered deadline had expired. It was also made within an hour of the publication of a Neil Wilby Media article that highlighted their default and mapped out the route to enforcement of the debt  (read that article in full here). 

The background

At the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 22nd July 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC struck out the Pontings’ harassment claim and dismissed their parallel interim injunction application against journalist Neil Wilby, the author of this article.

In the same sealed Order, the couple were directed to pay costs of £1,700 to their litigation opponent, within six weeks. The court’s normal deadline for such payments is 14 days, but the Pontings were inexplicably afforded a much longer period.

On 27th August 2025, they were reminded of the impending deadline and given payment details. No acknowledgement was received to that email and the deadline passed without compliance.

Defiance until publicly exposed

That left the Pontings in breach of a High Court Order until such time as the payment was made. The timing of the eventual transfer — less than an hour after the aforementioned Neil Wilby Media article was published — suggests that only public exposure triggered compliance.

Neil Wilby says: “It speaks volumes that payment was only made when the default was put into the public domain. The lesson is clear: without scrutiny, some litigants will continue to treat court Orders as optional.”

A wider pattern of non-compliance

This payment by the Pontings contrasts sharply with two much larger debts that remain outstanding. In March 2020, Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs), to protect its officers from what the court heard were stalking, harassment and malicious falsehoods allegations, secured a lifetime injunction against Paul Ponting together with £30,000 in costs (read full judgment here). None of that sum, plus accrued interest, has been paid.

Similarly, in April 2024 two protected claimants — anonymised as “Miss G” and “Mrs F” — obtained two lifetime stalking and harassment injunctions against the same person and, between them, were awarded £26,400 in costs and damages (read more here). Again, no payment has been made.

Proceedings to commit Ponting to prison for alleged breaches of the Lancs injunction are ongoing at Liverpool County Court. He denies wrongdoing and his counsel has described the committal application as “vexatious.” Those contempt proceedings only came about after sustained journalistic pressure on the force, and its Police and Crime Commissioner, from Neil Wilby Media.

Prolific litigant

At the July hearing in London, Paul Ponting told the court that he was not a “prolific litigant” and accused the defendant of lying in submitting otherwise, both orally and in written pleadings.

Yet his own social media activity under the “UKCP” handle (@UKCorruptPolice) tells a different story. This week he boasted of having no fewer than eight live civil claims against four different police forces. 

The public interest

Payment of the £1,700 costs may partially close one chapter, but the broader picture remains troubling: A persistent litigant who repeatedly brings claims, defies court Orders, and only complies, or is brought back before a court in the case of Lancs, under the glare of publicity.

The question for the courts is how many more defaults it will take before meaningful sanctions are imposed.

Neil Wilby added: “Civil courts need to insist on Security for Costs in every future claim brought by the Pontings. Otherwise, defendants risk being dragged through expensive litigation with little prospect of recovering costs if they win.”

“I spent a considerable amount of time across three days this week preparing for enforcement action – status enquiries, taking legal advice, completing application forms, drafting statements of grounds and witness statements – and I will be looking to the Pontings to meet those wasted costs on pain of further court action.

“They both need to understand the seriousness and consequences of treating the High Court , and litigation opponents, in such a contemptuous fashion”

____________________________________________________________________________

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Saturday 6th September 2025 at 07h55

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Image Credits: NWM

© Neil Wilby 2015–2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.