Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1903 |
| Year | 1903 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Costs - Jurisdiction - Alternative Defendants -
In an action in the King's Bench Division, claiming relief against the defendants in the alternative, the Court has jurisdiction in a proper case to order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of the successful defendant, or to order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the successful defendant and then to add those costs to the costs which the unsuccessful defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff.
The latter course should by adopted when the action is tried with a jury and the judge does not think that there is “good cause” for depriving the successful defendant of costs.
APPEAL from a decision of Grantham J.
The action was brought originally against the Blyth Theatre Company alone, to recover a sum of 189l. 11s. 6d. for work done and materials supplied in connection with the defendants' theatre at Blyth. The statement of claim alleged that the work was done and the materials supplied at the request of the company by their agent, William Hope, the architect employed by the defendants in building the theatre. By their defence the company denied (amongst other things) that they or their agent requested the plaintiff to supply materials or do work as alleged in the statement of claim, and also set up other defences immaterial to be stated in detail. Thereupon the plaintiff took out a summons for leave to add Hope as a defendant to the action, and an order was made, dated January 29, 1902, giving the plaintiff liberty to amend the writ by adding the name of Hope as a defendant to the action, and to amend the statement of claim by claiming in the alternative against Hope the same sum as that claimed against the company, and in further alternative claiming the same sum against Hope by way of damages for breach of warranty of authority to order the work and materials, and the question of costs of and incident to the application was reserved. The writ and statement of claim were amended accordingly. The company put in an amended defence, alleging that Hope had no authority to employ the plaintiff. Hope, by his defence, denied that he was the agent of the company, and set up other defences identical with those set up by the company. At the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff against the company; and thereupon the judge ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the company and for the defendant Hope, and also ordered that the defendant Hope should recover against the plaintiff costs, to be ascertained, and that the plaintiff should recover costs against the defendant company, to be taxed, and also the plaintiff's taxed costs occasioned by joining the defendant Hope, including the costs which the plaintiff was adjudged to pay to the defendant Hope. The learned judge gave leave to the company to appeal from so much of the judgment as directed them to pay to the plaintiff the costs incurred by joining the defendant Hope, including the costs which the plaintiff was ordered to pay to the defendant Hope. An appeal was accordingly brought by the company, but to it the defendant Hope was not a party.
The notice of appeal asked that the order of Grantham J. might be set aside, on the ground (1.) that there was no jurisdiction to make the order; (2.) that there was no contract between the company and the plaintiff for any breach of which the liability to pay the costs would arise; (3.) that the liability of the plaintiff to pay the costs did not arise in consequence of nor was the natural result of any breach by the company of any contract between the plaintiff and the company.
Manisty, K.C., and E. Shortt, for the theatre company. It is submitted that the learned judge had no jurisdiction to order the company to pay to the plaintiff the costs which he had to pay to Hope.
[ROMER L.J. Such an order is constantly made in the Chancery Division.]
But it has never before been made on the common law side. The learned judge considered he could make the order under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order LXV., r. 1 — which provides that “where any action, cause, matter, or issue is tried with a jury, the costs shall follow the event, unless the judge by whom such action, cause, matter, or issue is tried, or the Court, shall, for good cause, otherwise order” — on the ground that the company had failed as between themselves and Hope.
[ROMER L.J. The practice of the old Court of Chancery was not directly to make an order for costs between co-defendants, but to order the plaintiff to pay the one defendant's costs and to add them to his own against the other defendant; that is, to have them over against the other defendant. But since the Judicature Act it has been the habit of the Court to order the one defendant to pay costs to the other direct: Rudow v. Great Britain Mutual Life Assurance Society.F1]
Here the verdict was for the plaintiff against the theatre company only, and therefore the company were liable to pay the plaintiff his costs as against them: Child v. StenningF2; Williams v. BurrellF3; but it is submitted that the learned judge was wrong in holding that those cases applied as regards Hope's costs. The plaintiff's right of action as against Hope was an independent right as against an agent who had exceeded his authority: Collen v. Wright.F4 Having failed in this independent cause of action as against Hope, the plaintiff is liable for Hope's costs, and can only pass on that liability to the theatre company under some supposed contractual liability by way of indemnity.
[VAUGHAN WILLIAMS L.J. referred to Hammond v. BusseyF5, where a representation was made by contract as to the quality of coal sold by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs sold the coal to purchasers; the plaintiffs, in an action for breach of contract, recovered as “damages” the costs incurred by them in another action brought against them by the purchasers of the coal from them.]
That was a case of representation by the contract, just as in Collen v. Wright.F6
[STIRLING L.J. Order LXV., r. 1, says that, subject to the provisions of the Judicature Acts and the rules, costs “shall be in the discretion of the Court or judge.”]
Sect. 5 of the Judicature Act, 1890, also gives the Court a wide discretion; but the rule must be taken to refer to costs incurred by the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be. Here Hope's costs are not costs “incurred” by the plaintiff in prosecuting his independent claim against the theatre company, but only costs which he has been “ordered” to pay. The plaintiff applied to join another defendant, merely as a second string to his bow, and not for the purpose of prosecuting his claim against the theatre company.
[VAUGHAN WILLIAMS L.J. Could not the plaintiff join Hope as a defendant under Order XVI., r. 4, and was he not therefore a proper party?]
Complete justice could have been done if the theatre company had been the only defendants.
[ROMER L.J. In Bennetts & Co. v. McIlwraith & Co.F7, where an action was brought in the first instance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Government of Sarawak and Others and another appeal; Takong Tabari
-
American Patriot Insurance Agency Inc. v Mutual Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd
...to in the judgment: Lisa SA v Leamington Reinsurance Co Ltd and Avicola Villalobos SABDLR [2008] Bda LR 61 Sanderson v Blyth TheatreELR [1903] 2 KB 533 Bullock v The London General Omnibus CoELR [1907] 1 KB 264 Bankamerica Finance Ltd v NockELR [1988] 1 AC 1002 EMI Records v Ian Wallace Ltd......
-
Louis Campbell v Ambiance Resort Properties Inc.
...that a Bullock Order (see Bullock v The London General Omnibus Company and Others [1907] 1 KB 264) or Sanderson Order (see Sanderson v Blythe Theatre Company [1903] 2 KB 533) could have been considered by the learned judge as being appropriate in the circumstances of this 216 It was furth......
-
Desmond Bennett v Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd and Another
...advocated, or in the way Mrs Samuels-Brown QC supports. This is demonstrated in the well-known case ofSanderson v Blyth Theatre Company [1903] 2 KB 533 [1903] 2 KB 533. The headnote states in part: ‘In an action in the King's Bench Division, claiming relief against the defendants in the alt......
-
Province Punished In Costs In Flawed Consultation Case: 'Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia'*
...Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules R.9-1(6). Moulton¸ supra note 2 at para 35. The order originated in Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co, [1903] 2 KB 533 (CA), and is codified in the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, Moulton, supra note 2 at para 74. The foregoing provides only an over......
-
Preliminary Sections
...(1964) 1 All E.R. 367 307 Rutter v. Rutter 123 L.T. 585. 73 Salawu Atunde v. COP 14 W.A.C.A. 171 311 Sanderson v. Blyth Theatre Co. (1903) 2 K.B. 533. 35 Shorunke v. The King (1946) A.C.316, 327. 283 Smith and Kay (1859) 11 E.R. 299; (7 H.L. Cas. 750). 62 Smith v .Seghill Overseers (1875) L......
-
Litigation
...made in Bullock v he London General Omnibus Company [1907] 1 KB 264. 1163 Named after the order made in Sanderson v Blythe heatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533. 2272 LITIGATION notwithstanding that C had no claim against B. Sanderson orders are also used where A brings proceedings against B, who then ......
-
Table of Cases
...O.J. No. 4203 (S.C.J.) .......................................................................... 39 Sanderson v. Blyth Theatre Co., [1903] 2 K.B. 533 .............................................. 38 Schacter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, 93 D.L.R. (4th) 1, [1992] S.C.J. No. 68 ...............
-
Civil Procedure
...court observed that Bullock and Sanderson orders (see Bullock v London General Omnibus Co[1907] 1 KB 264 and Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co[1903] 2 KB 533) are not limited to the cases where the plaintiff”s claim against the defendants is only in the alternative. Where there is no good reason......