Gary Mark Lackerstein v Melvin Lawrence Jones, Kenneth Graeme Smith and NT (No2)

(1988) 93 FLR 442; [1988] NTSC 72

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Multiple defendants
4. › Unsuccessful defendant ordered to pay successful defendant's costs
5. › Bullock order
6. › Sanderson order
7. › Principles applicable
8. › Whether plaintiff acted reasonably in joining successful defendant
9. › Whether causes of action sufficiently connected
10. › Whether conduct of unsuccessful defendant justified order
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Multiple defendants
4. › Vicarious liability claim against employer joined with tort claim against servants
5. › Whether causes of action need be identical
6. › Whether connected or dependent causes of action sufficient
1. Tort
2. › Vicarious liability
3. › Police officers
4. › Whether acting in course of employment
5. › Police Administration Act 1984 (NT), ss 162, 163(1), (3), (6)

Quick Take

A Bullock or Sanderson order may be made where the causes of action against multiple defendants are not identical but are substantially connected or dependent on one another. In vicarious liability cases, the claim against the employer is sufficiently connected with the tort claim against the servant because the plaintiff cannot reach the employer without first proving the servant's tort. Four conditions must be satisfied: (1) the plaintiff acted reasonably in joining the successful defendant; (2) the causes of action are substantially connected or dependent; (3) the conduct of the unsuccessful defendant makes the order a proper exercise of discretion; and (4) the court must balance the policy against forcing unnecessary multiplicity of actions against the policy that an unsuccessful defendant should not have to pay more than one set of costs.