The Court of Appeal held that where a respondent to an appeal brings a cross-appeal against a co-defendant, thereby drawing that co-defendant into the appeal proceedings, and the cross-appeals become moot because the appellant fails, the respondent who initiated the cross-appeal should bear the costs of both cross-appeals. The rationale was that the co-defendant's involvement and responsive cross-appeal were attributable to the respondent's desire for a fall-back position, and it was through no fault of the co-defendant that the merits were not determined.
The full text is available to signed-in members.