This Practice Note provides information on Sanderson and Bullock orders. It discusses what they are, the circumstances in which they can be made and the rationale behind the making of such orders. Sanderson and Bullock orders—what are they? Sanderson and Bullock orders arise in circumstances where a claim (in contract or in tort) is brought against two or more separate defendants but where the claimant is only successful against one of those defendants. The orders derive from the following decisions: • Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company (1903)—in which the court ordered the unsuccessful defendant to pay the successful defendant’s costs (a Sanderson order) • Bullock v London General Omnibus Co (1907)—in which the court ordered the claimant to pay the successful defendant’s costs, but permitted the claimant to add those costs to the costs the claimant was to recover from the unsuccessful defendant (a Bullock order) A Sanderson order is sometimes also referred to as a Bullock order (Mayer v Harte (1960)). They are closely related but are not

This Practice Note provides information on the purpose of costs orders, what they can include, the different types and the general rule that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs. It also provides information on the different provisions as to costs that can be included in a court order as well as what happens when there is no provision as to costs in a court order. This Practice Notes acts as an introduction to this topic and should be read in conjunction with the following Practice Notes: • Costs orders—purpose, what to include and different types • Costs orders—the general rule • Costs orders—departing from the general rule and circumstances where it is not applicable • Costs orders—the court's discretion • Costs orders—effect of conduct and misconduct Costs orders—the general rule The general rule under CPR 44.2(2)(a) is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs. This means that if the claimant is successful, the defendant will usually be ordered to pay the claimant's

This Practice Note considers the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order set-off so as to reduce the costs liability a party has been ordered to pay. The set-off may be against the costs liability of another party, costs incurred in another set of proceedings, a judgment debt, future liabilities, funding or interim payments. What is set-off? For a general understanding of what is meant by the term ‘set-off’, see Practice Note: What is set-off and when is it available?. Note that this provides information that extends beyond set-off of costs. Before set-off can be ordered Before the court can consider whether to exercise its discretion to order set-off, it is necessary for the existence and amount of each liability to be established either by agreement or judgment. Relevant CPR provisions CPR 44.12 provides that the court may assess the costs that each party is liable to pay. If the court decides to do so then it may: • set-off the amount assessed against any amount the party is entitled to

This Practice Note considers the recovery of costs in proceedings involving a child or a protected party, the liability of a litigation friend for costs and the litigation friend’s ability to recover costs incurred. Specific rules apply in these cases because children and protected parties are considered to be lacking in capacity for the purposes of court proceedings. Guidance is also provided in the Practice Note of Senior Costs judge Gordon-Saker dated December 2021 which addresses the approval of costs settlements, assessments under CPR 46.4(2) and deductions from damages for children and protected parties: For guidance on the appointment of a litigation friend, see Practice Note: Claims involving a child—appointment of a litigation friend. This Practice Note also refers to the Court of Appeal decision in Barker v Confiance Ltd (2020), which is referred to in other sources as Glover v Barker. Definitions (child, protected person, litigation friend) This Practice Note refers to the following terms: • child—means a person under 18 (CPR 21.1(2)) • protected person—means a party, or an intended

This Practice Note considers the rationale for enforcing an interim costs order and the use of debarring orders and unless orders as a sanction for a party’s failure to comply with an interim costs order. The principles set out in the authorities are considered and examples of the approach of the courts to applications for debarring orders are provided. Rationale for enforcing an interim costs order It is important that the courts have mechanisms at their disposal so that they are in a position to enforce interim costs orders. If this were not the case the force of the costs order sanction would be seriously undermined. This point was clearly set out by the Court of Appeal in Crystal Decisions v Vedatech Corporation (2008): ‘The court marks what it regards as an irresponsible application by an immediate order for the payment of costs. That is intended to bring home to a party - when considering whether to make an application - that an unsuccessful application may carry a price which will have

This Practice Note provides information on departing from the general rule that the successful party recovers their costs from the unsuccessful party. It provides examples of when the court has departed from the general rule along with circumstances where the general rule has not been applicable. For information on the general rule and the court’s discretion, see Practice Notes: Costs orders—the general rule and Costs orders—the court's discretion. Departing from the general rule In Straker v Tudor Rose (2007), it was stated that the court should apply the general rule, unless there are circumstances which lead to a different result. The following, non exhaustive, list of circumstances that may lead to a different result were provided: • a failure to follow a pre-action protocol • whether a party has unreasonably pursued or contested an allegation or an issue • the manner in which someone has pursued an allegation or an issue, and • whether a successful party has exaggerated his claim in whole or in part Where

This Practice Note looks at the effect of a party’s conduct on both the type of costs order a court will make and the amount of costs that will be ordered. There are a number of key CPR provisions: • CPR 44.2 specifically states that a factor the courts may take into account is the conduct of the parties. CPR 44.2(5) sets out examples of conduct the court may consider when exercising its discretion to make a costs order, which include conduct at the pre-action stage as well as during proceedings and efforts to resolve/settle the dispute and any lack of a genuine attempt to compromise. CPR 44.4(3) covers the impact of a party’s conduct on the amount of costs. See: Parties' conduct (CPR 44.2)—principles below • CPR 44.11 covers the courts powers where there has been misconduct by either a party or the party’s representative and sets out the sanctions a court may impose. See: Misconduct in connection with costs assessment—court's powers (CPR 44.11) below • CPR 1.3 sets out the duty of the parties

This Practice Note considers the issues relating to costs when dealing with group litigation claims. These are claims which involve multiple parties and may or may not be the subject of a group litigation order (GLO). Where a GLO has been made specific CPR provisions apply. Where an order has not been made, authorities assist in understanding how the issue of costs will be addressed by the courts. This Practice Note looks at both scenarios. GLOs—what are they? GLO cases involve a group of parties that come together in proceedings, whose claims are entered into a group register. A party whose claim is entered on the group register is defined as a group litigant (CPR 46.6(2)). A group litigant can be a claimant or a defendant. The purpose of a GLO is to enable issues that are common to a large number of claims to be determined in one set of proceedings in a cost effective way. For guidance on GLOs more generally, see Practice Notes: Group litigation orders—introduction and Group litigation orders—procedure. When

This Practice Note deals with provisions for the payment of costs orders, considers the differences depending on whether the costs order includes a time limit for payment and provides guidance on the expression and calculation of time limits. It also considers when a costs order can be enforced, whether a costs order can be stayed or deferred and whether a stay of execution of a costs order can be set aside. This Practice Note also considers whether an extension of time can be obtained to comply with a costs order. For guidance on the ability of the court to deal with parties that fail to comply with interim costs orders, see Practice Note: Costs orders—debarring orders where there has been a failure to pay. Payment of a costs order—if the court order includes a time limit CPR 44.2(1) provides the court with a general discretion as to costs. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Costs orders—the general rule and Costs orders—the court's discretion. As well as a discretion as to whether the costs of one party are

This Practice Note provides information on the purpose of a costs order, what can be included, the duty to inform the client about a costs order and the need to make appropriate submissions as to costs. It also provides information on the different types of costs orders, typical provisions as to costs and the application of the Boxall principles to general civil litigation. Purpose of costs orders The general purpose behind the making of a costs order is to enable a party to recover a reasonable and proportionate amount of costs. It is not designed to be compensatory and/or to put the receiving party in the position that they would have been in had they not needed to litigate to assert their rights. These fundamental points were noted in detail by the Supreme Court in the leading decision in Process & Industrial Developments Ltd v The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2025). In this case, the Supreme Court was required to consider whether the hearing judge had erred in exercising his discretion

This Practice Note provides information on the court’s discretion to deal with costs under the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) and CPR 44. It considers what a costs order can include, potential issues regarding foreign currency, costs orders in split trial cases, costs orders where there is a stay of proceedings and costs orders in appeal cases. It also considers the duty of a solicitor to inform their client about a costs order. For information on specific types of costs orders, see: Costs orders—overview and Practice Note: Costs orders—purpose, what to include and different types. For guidance on costs orders in a foreign currency, see Practice Note: Foreign currency claims. Court’s discretion to deal with costs—Senior Courts Act 1981 There is no right to reimbursement of costs spent during court proceedings—such recovery is at the discretion of the court which is set out in both statute and in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). SCA 1981, s 51 provides that the costs of and incidental to all proceedings in the civil division of the Court of Appeal,

This Practice Note provides information on the general rule that the unsuccessful party will be ordered by the court to pay the successful party’s costs. It considers cases where there has been minimal recovery and where a party has won on some but not on all of the issues. It also covers the general rule that costs are dealt with as a separate matter from the substantive relief sought in the proceedings and costs orders in closed material procedure cases. For information on departing from the general rule and the circumstances where it is not applicable, see Practice Note: Costs orders—departing from the general rule and circumstances where it is not applicable. For information on the purpose of costs orders, what to include and the different types, see Practice Note: Costs orders—purpose, what to include and different types. The general rule—unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs In Langer v McKeown (2021), the Court of Appeal stated that the general rule is for costs to follow the issue rather than the event because ‘an overly robust