BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Ltd v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd

The court found no basis to depart from the default rule under CPR 38.6. BAE took the risk in proceeding against Geofirma without clear evidence, and Bowmer & Kirkland had not acted unreasonably or misled BAE. There was no obligation on Bowmer & Kirkland to clarify Geofirma's position earlier than ordered by the court. The application for Bowmer & Kirkland to pay Geofirma's costs was dismissed.

Parties: Claimant: BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Limited; First Defendant: Bowmer & Kirkland Limited; Second Defendant: Geofirma Soils Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 23 February 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil Costs Application / Post Discontinuance Costs Application
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Costs on Discontinuance, Sanderson Orders, Liability for Costs Between Defendants

Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs on Discontinuance Sanderson Orders Liability for Costs Between Defendants

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Limited

Claimant

Bowmer & Kirkland Limited

First Defendant

Geofirma Soils Engineering Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs Application / Post Discontinuance Costs Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the court should depart from the default costs order under CPR Part 38.6 and order the first defendant to pay the second defendant's costs after the claimant discontinued against the second defendant
2 Whether Bowmer & Kirkland acted unreasonably in failing to clarify Geofirma's involvement earlier

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

The normal position on costs under CPR 38.6 applies; the claimant is liable for the second defendant's costs.