Saxton v Bayliss & Ors

Saxton v Bayliss & Ors

The judge erred in principle by making a costs order against the third defendant solely because she participated in the trial, despite her not being a party to the preliminary issues tried. There was no sufficient basis to impose costs liability on her, as she was not warned, was not a party to the relevant dispute, and her participation was minimal and as a witness. The interim payment on account of costs was within the trial judge's discretion and not unreasonable.

Parties
Claimant: Saxton; First Defendant: Bayliss; Second Defendant: Bayliss (Mother); Third Defendant: Bayliss (Mrs Bayliss)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Costs Orders After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of the costs order against the third defendant; appeal dismissed in respect of the interim payment on account of costs.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Right of Way, Boundary Disputes, Third Party Costs Liability, Harassment, Nuisance, Trespass
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Orders Right of Way Boundary Disputes Third Party Costs Liability Harassment Nuisance +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saxton

Claimant

Bayliss

First Defendant

Bayliss (Mother)

Second Defendant

Bayliss (Mrs Bayliss)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Costs Orders After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in making a costs order against the third defendant who was not a party to the preliminary issues tried
  2. 2 Whether the interim payment on account of costs was excessive or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by making a costs order against the third defendant solely because she participated in the trial, despite her not being a party to the preliminary issues tried. There was no sufficient basis to impose costs liability on her, as she was not warned, was not a party to the relevant dispute, and her participation was minimal and as a witness. The interim payment on account of costs was within the trial judge's discretion and not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of the costs order against the third defendant; appeal dismissed in respect of the interim payment on account of costs.

Orders

  • Costs order against the third defendant set aside
  • Interim payment on account of costs of £50,000 upheld