Bryne v South Sefton Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1904 (22 November 2001)

Bryne v South Sefton Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1904 (22 November 2001)

There was no jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order against Dooley & Co under section 51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 because they had ceased to act before proceedings commenced and had not exercised a right to conduct litigation in the proceedings. Section 51(3) did not provide jurisdiction in the absence of a sufficient causal link between their conduct and the costs incurred.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1904
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Gerard Byrne; Defendant/respondent: South Sefton Health Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction Under Supreme Court Act 1981 S.51, Solicitor Liability for Costs
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Wasted Costs Orders Limitation of Actions Jurisdiction Under Supreme Court Act 1981 S.51 Solicitor Liability for Costs

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

Parties

Gerard Byrne

Claimant/appellant

South Sefton Health Authority

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a wasted costs order can be made against solicitors who ceased to act before proceedings commenced under section 51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether section 51(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides jurisdiction to make a costs order against former solicitors in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

There was no jurisdiction to make a wasted costs order against Dooley & Co under section 51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 because they had ceased to act before proceedings commenced and had not exercised a right to conduct litigation in the proceedings. Section 51(3) did not provide jurisdiction in the absence of a sufficient causal link between their conduct and the costs incurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for costs against Dooley & Co set aside
  • Appellant awarded costs of the appeal