Irvine v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 129 (03 February 2005)

Irvine v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 129 (03 February 2005)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to refuse a Bullock or Sanderson order because the claims against the second and third defendants were not made in the alternative, were not properly particularised or pursued, and it was unreasonable for the claimant to have joined and continued claims against them. The judge's exercise of discretion was not flawed and the general rule on costs applied.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 129
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Irvine; First Defendant/respondent: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; Second Defendant: Carillion PLC; Third Defendant: Town and Country Flooring Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Bullock Order, Sanderson Order, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Joinder of Defendants
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Costs Orders Bullock Order Sanderson Order Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Irvine

Claimant/appellant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

First Defendant/respondent

Carillion PLC

Second Defendant

Town and Country Flooring Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to make a Bullock or Sanderson order for costs against the first defendant in favour of the successful second and third defendants.
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for the claimant to join the second and third defendants and pursue claims against them.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to refuse a Bullock or Sanderson order because the claims against the second and third defendants were not made in the alternative, were not properly particularised or pursued, and it was unreasonable for the claimant to have joined and continued claims against them. The judge's exercise of discretion was not flawed and the general rule on costs applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the costs of the second and third defendants.
  • Costs summarily assessed in the agreed sum of £4,645.