What is non-negligent damage? If damage is caused to neighbouring property by the contractor’s negligence or breach of contract, the contractor will be liable in the tort of negligence or nuisance to the owner of the property which has been lost or damaged. See Practice Note: Negligence in construction. The adjoining owner may sue the contractor or the employer as the party for whom the work is being carried out. The contractor has to provide an indemnity to the employer against claims for damage to property caused by the contractor’s negligence or breach of contract. If the employer has been sued, it can then claim an indemnity from the contractor against damages awarded. The difficulty arises when damage caused to a neighbouring property is not due to the contractor's negligence or breach of contract—non-negligent damage. The problem first arose in a 1958 case, Gold v Patman and Fotheringham, in which damage occurred to the property adjoining the site of the works. The damage suffered was caused by a loss of support to the building. The owner of the works was

This Practice Note provides guidance on when non-parties may access documents on the court file pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction and CPR 5.4C. It explains the type of documents that can be accessed by a non-party or third party, such as statements of case, judgments and orders, other documents on the court file or in the court records and communications between the court and a party or other person. It considers whether the court’s permission is required and any conditions to be satisfied to gain access, including whether it is in the interests of open justice to provide access, and the courts’ inherent jurisdiction to determine how to exercise that principle. It also covers the process and requirements for making an application seeking access to court documents and information, and how parties can restrict access to statements of case and court documents. Guidance is also given on searching court registers. It is important to advise parties about to embark on civil proceedings of the risk that documents produced

Overview of the non-party campaigning regime Part VI of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA 2000) (as amended) sets out the framework for regulation of non-party campaigners ahead of UK and region-wide elections in the UK. Although PPERA 2000 sets out a national framework, the regime can apply differently between the devolved administrations of the UK and the rules may be supplemented or altered in those jurisdictions by local electoral administration rules. In particular, changes made to PPERA 2000 under the Elections Act 2022 (EA 2022) do not apply to the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament. See for example the definition of a reserved regulated period in PPERA 2000, s 89A which was inserted by EA 2022. Non-party campaigners are individuals or organisations that undertake activity that might reasonably be deemed to be intended to influence the outcome of an election under the legislation, but are not candidates or political parties themselves. Non-party campaigners are referred to as ‘third parties’ under the legislation. The Electoral Commission

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In Bhattacharya v Armstrong, the court dismissed an application by the bankrupts’ daughters to set aside or vary, under CPR 40.9, a declaration made in earlier proceedings (to which the daughters were not party) that the trustees in bankruptcy were legally and beneficially entitled to the family property and entitled to sell it. The court considered the requirements for granting such relief and found that the daughters had no real prospect of achieving a different result at a second trial, and also that the application was an abuse of process. The decision is a useful reminder that a person who knows their alleged proprietary interest is being tested in bankruptcy proceedings cannot safely stay on the sidelines and seek to relitigate after judgment. Written by Aziz Abdul, legal director at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court made a non-party costs order against a director of companies wound up in the public interest. The director’s claim to have held a bona fide belief that there was an arguable defence was rejected, as was an argument that this would have been a sufficient answer to the application. The director was ordered to pay both the Secretary of State’s costs and the companies’ costs (a Bathampton order). The court examined the test for making such orders. Written by Matthew Parfitt, barrister, at Erskine Chambers (who appeared for the Secretary of State).

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal has provided authoritative guidance on when credit hire companies may be liable for adverse costs in failed personal injury litigation, which are ordinarily subject to Qualified One-Way Cost Shifting (QOCS). The court held that where litigation is brought in the claimant’s name but primarily for the financial benefit of a credit hire company, and where litigation is a foreseeable consequence of the hire arrangement, non-party costs orders (NPCOs) are likely to be appropriate. The court emphasised the practical and economic reality as the touchstones for costs liability. The decision is a significant development in credit hire litigation and QOCS practice. Written by Fiaz Siddique, barrister at Park Square Barristers.

This Practice Note considers the issues surrounding making an application for the court to exercise its discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) to make a non-party costs order (NPCO). It considers the appropriate judge to hear the application and the type of procedure, generally summary procedure, adopted by the court when dealing with this sort of application. It also provides information in respect of obtaining a disclosure order to assist with the fair determination of an application for an NPCO as well as giving the third party a reasonable opportunity to attend the application hearing for an NPCO. The following Practice Notes may also be of interest: • Non-party costs orders—guidelines • Non-party costs orders—company directors and shareholders • Non-party costs orders—funders • Non-party costs orders—solicitors • Non-party costs orders—who can they be made against? NPCO application—disclosure Prior to making an application for an NPCO, consideration should be given to the evidence that is available in support of the application and the steps that can be taken to obtain any evidence

This Practice Note considers non-party costs orders (NPCOs) against company directors—the same principles also apply to controlling shareholders. It considers the requirements that need to be satisfied for the court to exercise its discretion to make an NPCO against a director and notes key case law. Consideration is also given to piercing the corporate veil and some illustrative decisions are provided. This Practice Note assumes an understanding of the general principles of NPCOs to include the fact that an NPCO is exceptional and will only be made if it is just in all the circumstances of the case (Dymocks Franchise Systems v Todd (2004)). For guidance, see Practice Note: Non-party costs orders—guidelines. Note, many of the authoritative cases provide warnings against over-citation of authorities in respect of applications for NPCOs because the exercise carried out by the judge is one of broad discretion. However, the discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the guidance that has been established by case law, which is of particular relevance to cases which concern applications

This Practice Note considers whether a non-party costs order (NPCO) will be made against a funder of litigation. It considers the differences between pure funders and professional funders and highlights issues to consider in relation to NPCOs made against funders which exceed the level of funding provided and/or which include costs determined on an indemnity basis rather than a standard basis. The Arkin cap is also considered in conjunction with the authority of Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone (2016), where it was held that this extends to money provided for the express purpose of meeting obligations under security for costs orders and the judgment in Davey v Money (2019), where the High Court considered that it was merely a means of achieving a just result in all the circumstances of the particular case (as opposed to a hard rule) and imposed an NPCO exceeding the amount advanced under a funding agreement. The following Practice Notes provide general information on NPCOs: • Non-party costs orders—application • Non-party costs orders—guidelines • Non-party costs orders—who can they be made against? In

This Practice Note sets out the power in section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) that provides the court with the discretion to make a non-party costs order (NPCO) ie a costs order made by the court in favour of, or against, a third party (a person who is not a party to the proceedings). It sets out the approach laid down by the Court of Appeal in Deutsche Bank v Sebastian Holdings (2016) when dealing with the provisions in CPR 46.2 on NPCOs. Guidance is provided on the need for a third party to be warned about any potential application for a NPCO as well as the need to join the third party to the proceedings. This Practice Note also sets out what the court will consider when dealing with an application for a NPCO and whether causation is required. The following Practice Notes may also be of interest: • Non-party costs orders—application • Non-party costs orders—company directors and shareholders • Non-party costs orders—funders • Non-party costs orders—solicitors • Non-party costs orders—who can

This Practice Note provides information on when a non-party costs order (NPCO) can be made against a solicitor and the factors the court will consider. It also considers the liability of partners in law firms. The following Practice Notes may also be of interest: • Non-party costs orders—application • Non-party costs orders—guidelines • Non-party costs orders—company directors and shareholders • Non-party costs orders—funders • Non-party costs orders—who can they be made against? Court’s discretion to make an NPCO—general The court has a discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) as to what order to make in relation to the costs of and incidental to proceedings in the civil Court of Appeal, the High Court and the County Court. This is subject only to the additional provisions within SCA 1981, s 51, any other enactment or the CPR. SCA 1981, s 51 enables the court to make a costs order against a non-party to the proceedings. For general information on the issues to consider in relation to an NPCO and making the application,

This Practice Note explains who a non-party costs order (NPCO) may be made against and under what circumstances. It is possible for an NPCO to be made against the following: • solicitors • directors • funders • expert witnesses • insurers • litigation friends • litigants in person • liquidators • political parties • successful tenderers in public procurement disputes • trade unions • credit hire companies For information in relation to solicitors, directors and funders, see Practice Notes: • Non-party costs orders—solicitors • Non-party costs orders—company directors and shareholders • Non-party costs orders—funders The court has a discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) as to what order to make in relation to the costs of and incidental to proceedings in the civil Court of Appeal, the High Court and the County Court. This is subject only to the additional provisions within SCA 1981, s 51, any other enactment or the CPR. For general guidance in relation to NPCOs, see Practice Notes: Non-party costs orders—guidelines and Non-party costs