McDermott v Inhealth Ltd [2018] EWHC 1835 (QB) (19 July 2018)

McDermott v Inhealth Ltd [2018] EWHC 1835 (QB) (19 July 2018)

The protocol and scans claims were sufficiently linked, as they both concerned the failure to identify the claimant's aneurysm and involved the same defendants blaming each other. The district judge erred in treating the protocol claim as independent. It was reasonable for the claimant to sue all three defendants, and a Bullock order requiring the Second Defendant to pay all relevant costs was appropriate.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1835 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Darren Richard McDermott; Respondent/second Defendant: InHealth Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order After Judgment and Discontinuance
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Bullock Orders, Sanderson Orders, Joinder of Defendants, Negligence, Apportionment of Liability
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Orders Bullock Orders Sanderson Orders Joinder of Defendants Negligence Apportionment of Liability

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Richard McDermott

Appellant/claimant

InHealth Limited

Respondent/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order After Judgment and Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in limiting the Second Defendant's liability for costs to the period after 1 December 2016
  2. 2 Whether a Bullock order should be made requiring the Second Defendant to pay all of the Claimant's non-generic costs against the First and Third Defendants and all costs payable to the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The protocol and scans claims were sufficiently linked, as they both concerned the failure to identify the claimant's aneurysm and involved the same defendants blaming each other. The district judge erred in treating the protocol claim as independent. It was reasonable for the claimant to sue all three defendants, and a Bullock order requiring the Second Defendant to pay all relevant costs was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • District judge's order set aside to the extent appealed