CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
When writing the previous post about a Bullock order it struck me that there may be some people not quite certain of what a “Bullock order ” or “Sanderson order” is. This gives rise to a need to explain those terms. (My apologies to the majority of readers who are familiar with these terms, however this is the back to basics series.
COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS
Both these orders are concerned with situations in which a claimant has pursued an action against more than one defendant and succeeded against some, but not all the defendants. At the end of the case the court will have to determine whether it was reasonable for the claimant to pursue all defendants. If it was reasonable then the question then arises as to who should pay the costs.
A BULLOCK ORDER
In a “Bullock order” the claimant is ordered to pay the successful defendant’s costs but the unsuccessful defendant (or defendants) are ordered to reimburse the claimant for those costs.
A SANDERSON ORDER
In a “Sanderson order” the unsuccessful defendant is ordered to pay the successful defendant’s costs directly.
There are several useful articles that expand and explain the use of these orders.
- Clayton UTZ Never mind the Bullocks, here’s the Sandersons: Costs orders in a product liability context
- The Ropewalk Chambers, “Bullock, Sanderson and all that Jazz”
- Dispute Resolution Blog After Sanderson and Bullock orders, Jabang and Woodland orders
- Civil Litigation Brief: Bullock and Sanderson orders in Practice
- Quadrant Chambers – “Sanderson” and “Bullock” orders.
- Kosie Minsky Sanderson and Bullock Orders Explained