Jabang v Wadman & Ors [2017] EWHC 1993 (QB) (31 July 2017)

C succeeded in his claim against D2 and, as against him, there will need to be an assessment of damages. The claims against D3 D4 and D5 were unsuccessful. (paragraph 1)

C accepted that he should be ordered to pay the costs of D3 and D4 (although, as will be seen, he sought an indemnity for that liability from D2). D2 accepted that he would have to pay at least most of C’s costs of his claim against the D2. However, there was disagreement as between C on the one hand and D2 and D5 on the other as to the following issues:

  1. Whether D2 should have to pay all of C’s costs of his claim against him or whether there should be a reduction to reflect the fact that, while I found that D2 had been negligent on 5 October 2011, I rejected the claim that D2 had also been negligent on 28 October 2011.
  2. Whether D2 should have to indemnify C for his liability to pay the costs of the D3 and D4 -whether a Bullock order should be made in C’s favour – see Bullock v The London General Omnibus Company [1907] 1 KB 264.
  3. Whether C should be able to recover from D2 his own costs incurred in making his unsuccessful claims against D3 and D4.
  4. What orders in principle should be made regarding the D5’s costs and C’s costs of pursuing his unsuccessful claim against D5. The complication here is that D2 and D5 were partners in the same General Practice… (paragraph 2)


i) D2 must pay all of C’s costs as assessed or agreed.

ii) C must pay the costs of D3, D4, and D5.

iii) But D2 must indemnify C for his liability under (ii).

iv) The parties will have a brief opportunity to consider whether, for practical reasons, the representatives of D2 and D5 would wish to have these decisions in principle reflected differently in the formal order of the court. (paragraph 25)