Irvine v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors

Irvine v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in refusing to make a Bullock or Sanderson order because the claims against the second and third defendants were not made in the alternative, were not properly particularised, and the claimant's conduct in joining and pursuing claims against them was unreasonable. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs applied.

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 Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Bullock Order, Sanderson Order, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Costs Orders Bullock Order Sanderson Order Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty

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 Judgment on Costs

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 claimant for the costs of the second and third defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claimant acted reasonably in joining the second and third defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in refusing to make a Bullock or Sanderson order because the claims against the second and third defendants were not made in the alternative, were not properly particularised, and the claimant's conduct in joining and pursuing claims against them was unreasonable. The general rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party's costs applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the costs of the second and third defendants
  • Costs of the appeal summarily assessed at £4,645 payable by the claimant