McDermott v Inhealth Ltd

McDermott v Inhealth Ltd

The protocol claim and scans claim were sufficiently linked and not perfectly independent; the Claimant acted reasonably in suing all three defendants who blamed one another. The district judge erred in treating the claims as independent and limiting the Bullock order. It is appropriate for the Second Defendant to pay all of the Claimant’s non-generic costs of his action against the First and Third Defendants and all costs the Claimant was liable to pay to the First Defendant.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Darren Richard McDermott; Respondent/second Defendant: InHealth Limited; Third Defendant: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; First Defendant: Ivan Moseley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Appeal Against Costs Order After Judgment and Discontinuance
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Bullock Orders, Sanderson Orders, Joinder of Defendants, Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Orders Bullock Orders Sanderson Orders Joinder of Defendants Negligence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Richard McDermott

Appellant/claimant

InHealth Limited

Respondent/second Defendant

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

Third Defendant

Ivan Moseley

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Appeal Against Costs Order After Judgment and Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in limiting the Bullock order to costs incurred after 1 December 2016
  2. 2 Whether the protocol claim and scans claim were independent causes of action precluding a Bullock order for all costs
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant acted reasonably in suing all three defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The protocol claim and scans claim were sufficiently linked and not perfectly independent; the Claimant acted reasonably in suing all three defendants who blamed one another. The district judge erred in treating the claims as independent and limiting the Bullock order. It is appropriate for the Second Defendant to pay all of the Claimant’s non-generic costs of his action against the First and Third Defendants and all costs the Claimant was liable to pay to the First Defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Second Defendant to pay all of the Claimant’s non-generic costs of his action against the First and Third Defendants