Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) (28 June 2019)

Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) (28 June 2019)

The trial judge was entitled to make a Bullock order given the intertwined claims and the conduct of the First to Third Defendants, and there was no error of law or excess of discretion. The Claimant's unsuccessful appeal did not justify a Bullock order for her own appeal costs.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms Sarvenaz Fouladi; Defendant/appellant: Darout Limited; Defendant/appellant: Ahmed El Derrami; Defendant/appellant: Sarah El Kerrami; Additional Defendant: St Mary Abbot's Court Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order (bullock Order) and Application for Bullock Order on Appeal Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for Bullock order on appeal costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Bullock and Sanderson Orders, Nuisance, Breach of Covenant, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Bullock and Sanderson Orders Nuisance Breach of Covenant Joinder of Parties

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Sarvenaz Fouladi

Claimant/respondent

Darout Limited

Defendant/appellant

Ahmed El Derrami

Defendant/appellant

Sarah El Kerrami

Defendant/appellant

St Mary Abbot's Court Limited

Additional Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order (bullock Order) and Application for Bullock Order on Appeal Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a Bullock order requiring the First to Third Defendants to pay the Fourth Defendant's costs incurred by the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether a Bullock order should be made in respect of the Claimant's own unsuccessful appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to make a Bullock order given the intertwined claims and the conduct of the First to Third Defendants, and there was no error of law or excess of discretion. The Claimant's unsuccessful appeal did not justify a Bullock order for her own appeal costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for Bullock order on appeal costs refused.

Orders

  • Bullock order made by HHJ Parfitt upheld; First to Third Defendants to pay sums payable by Claimant to Fourth Defendant and Claimant's costs of claim against Fourth Defendant.
  • No Bullock order in respect of Claimant's own appeal costs; costs to follow the event.