No, there wasn't. Hence the claim failed. The court cased assessed the legal basis and found there was none.
There clearly was a basis for the claim - a signed contract which said SISU would pay Higgs costs under certain conditions. I think it's kind of splitting hairs, but there's your 'legal basis'. What the judge decided, specifically, was that the specifics of contract law didn't allow the claim to succeed in this instance.
The Higgs took legal advice, and their lawyers thought they had sufficient grounds to proceed - it took two days for the court to go through it all, so clearly it wasn't open and shut.
To my mind it's patently ridiculous to say the case shouldn't have been brought, but then that's what ML seems to specialise in. From the judge's comments and the amount of time spent on considering matters, it would probably be fairer to say that SISU didn't have much of a 'basis' for their counterclaim.
I'm guessing though that in Labovitch's world it's perfectly acceptable for SISU to threaten or use legal action no matter what their actual chance of success, whereas presumably everyone else should just behave themselves and accept what they are told.
I note again the threat of expensive legal action against the Trust, by SISU, as a way to stifle dissent. You'll forgive me for not accepting Labovitch as a neutral (or even intelligent) opinion on the rights and wrongs of taking legal action.