Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors

Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors

The trial judge was entitled to make a Bullock order against the First to Third Defendants for costs payable to the Fourth Defendant, considering the intertwined nature of the claims and the conduct of the First to Third Defendants. The appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion in costs unless there is an error of law or the decision falls outside the reasonable ambit of discretion, which was not the case here. The Claimant was not entitled to a Bullock order for her own unsuccessful appeal, as costs should follow the event.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms Sarvenaz Fouladi; First Defendant/appellant: Darout Limited; Second Defendant/appellant: Ahmed El Derrami; Third Defendant/appellant: Sarah El Kerrami; Fourth Defendant/additional Defendant: St Mary Abbot’s Court Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Bullock Order, Nuisance, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Bullock Order Nuisance Joinder of Parties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Sarvenaz Fouladi

Claimant/respondent

Darout Limited

First Defendant/appellant

Ahmed El Derrami

Second Defendant/appellant

Sarah El Kerrami

Third Defendant/appellant

St Mary Abbot’s Court Limited

Fourth Defendant/additional Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a Bullock order against the First to Third Defendants for costs payable to the Fourth Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was entitled to a Bullock order for costs of her own unsuccessful appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to make a Bullock order against the First to Third Defendants for costs payable to the Fourth Defendant, considering the intertwined nature of the claims and the conduct of the First to Third Defendants. The appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion in costs unless there is an error of law or the decision falls outside the reasonable ambit of discretion, which was not the case here. The Claimant was not entitled to a Bullock order for her own unsuccessful appeal, as costs should follow the event.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Bullock order against First to Third Defendants for costs payable to Fourth Defendant upheld
  • Claimant's application for Bullock order for her own appeal costs dismissed