Pashamov v Taylor & Anor [2025] EWHC 1644 (KB) (30 June 2025)

Pashamov v Taylor & Anor [2025] EWHC 1644 (KB) (30 June 2025)

It was reasonable for the Claimant to join the First Defendant; the claims against both defendants arose from the same incident and were closely related; the Second Defendant resisted liability throughout and was in possession of material evidence; the First Defendant blamed the Second Defendant in part; the evidence relevant to the claim against the First Defendant was also relevant to the Second Defendant's liability. Accordingly, a Sanderson order is just, requiring the Second Defendant to pay the First Defendant's costs directly, and to pay the Claimant's costs of pursuing the First Defendant.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1644 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Radoslav Pashamov; First Defendant: Leon Taylor; Second Defendant: Edward Vinson Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Post Liability Trial; Costs and CMC Order
Outcome
Sanderson order granted; Second Defendant to pay First Defendant's costs and Claimant's costs of pursuing First Defendant.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Sanderson Order, Bullock Order, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Split Trials, Contributory Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Tort Costs Orders Sanderson Order Bullock Order Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Split Trials +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radoslav Pashamov

Claimant

Leon Taylor

First Defendant

Edward Vinson Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Post Liability Trial; Costs and CMC Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant should pay the First Defendant's costs via a Sanderson order
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant should pay the Claimant's costs of pursuing the First Defendant
  3. 3 Reasonableness of joining the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable for the Claimant to join the First Defendant; the claims against both defendants arose from the same incident and were closely related; the Second Defendant resisted liability throughout and was in possession of material evidence; the First Defendant blamed the Second Defendant in part; the evidence relevant to the claim against the First Defendant was also relevant to the Second Defendant's liability. Accordingly, a Sanderson order is just, requiring the Second Defendant to pay the First Defendant's costs directly, and to pay the Claimant's costs of pursuing the First Defendant.

Court Disposition

Sanderson order granted; Second Defendant to pay First Defendant's costs and Claimant's costs of pursuing First Defendant.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay First Defendant's costs directly (Sanderson order).
  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant's costs of pursuing First Defendant.