If the court decides to make an order for costs against a legally aided party, it may either make an order that the amount of the costs payable by the legally aided party is to be determined by a Costs Judge or District Judge, or make an order which specifies the amount which the legally aided party is required to pay.
Mr Justice Henry Carr dismissed an appeal against the making of a Bullock order against three of four defendants to a noise nuisance claim finding that the judge was entitled, “and indeed obliged” to look at all the circumstances of the case including “the reasonableness of the initial decision by the Claimant to join the Fourth Defendant as a party to the action, but also the entire conduct of the proceedings.”
So, you’ve recovered £700,000. But you were claiming £38m. Who really won?
Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart found that the claimant’s recovery in this case whilst “not, of itself, nominal … was a tiny fraction (about 2%) of the sum claimed” and amounted to, at best, a pyrrhic victory. Following an examination of various authorities on the subject of identifying the true winner in cases where the claimant has recovered a small fraction of the amount sought, he determined that the defendant should pay just 20% of the claimant’s costs.
Master Leonard considers the extent to which a receiving party can recover the costs of attending an inquest in circumstances where an admission of liability is made prior to it taking place.
The High Court overturned a partial “Bullock” Order and substituted it for a full one on grounds that the District Judge was wrong to treat two elements of the claim against three defendants as “perfectly independent causes of action” where the breaches of duty alleged were “in no way connected”, finding that the Claimant acted reasonably in suing all three defendants,”who were blaming one another”