Saxton v Bayliss & Ors [2013] EWHC 3136 (Ch) (20 March 2013)

Saxton v Bayliss & Ors [2013] EWHC 3136 (Ch) (20 March 2013)

The judge erred in principle by making a costs order against the third defendant solely because she participated in the trial, despite her not being a party to the preliminary issue tried and not being warned of costs risk. The interim costs order of £50,000 was within the trial judge's discretion and not unreasonable given the circumstances.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3136 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Saxton; First Defendant: Bayliss; Second Defendant: Bayliss (Mother); Third Defendant: Bayliss (Third Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order After Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of costs order against third defendant; appeal dismissed in respect of interim costs order.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Right of Way, Boundary Disputes, Third Party Costs, Litigants in Person
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Right of Way Boundary Disputes Third Party Costs Litigants in Person

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saxton

Claimant

Bayliss

First Defendant

Bayliss (Mother)

Second Defendant

Bayliss (Third Defendant)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order After Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a costs order against the third defendant who was not a party to the preliminary issue tried
  2. 2 Whether the interim costs order of £50,000 was within the judge's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by making a costs order against the third defendant solely because she participated in the trial, despite her not being a party to the preliminary issue tried and not being warned of costs risk. The interim costs order of £50,000 was within the trial judge's discretion and not unreasonable given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of costs order against third defendant; appeal dismissed in respect of interim costs order.

Orders

  • Costs order against third defendant set aside
  • Interim costs order of £50,000 upheld