( 228 )
June SIS, 1911
AbdulHahiman v.A'lneramkera
general costs of proceedings taken on behalf of all ; so that one oftwo defendants who employ the same solicitor can, if he alonesucceeds, recover, in the absence of agreement, only half the totalcosts of the defence. This is the rule stated in the case of Beaumontv. Senior and Bull'. It is, a rule based on equity and fair dealing,and I see no reason why it should not be applied in the present case.I would, therefore, vary the order of the District Judge by directingthe second defendant to receive from the plaintiff half the costs ofthe defence of the action.
Middleton J.—
I agree. It is contended here for the respondent that this Courtwill not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the DistrictJudge in making an order as to costs, unless it is clear that a manifestinjustice has been caused by its exercise. That, no doubt, is therule that this Court has consistently followed. But in the presentcase it seems that the defendants had one proctor, and would bejointly liable to that proctor in the absence of any express agreementfor the costs of the action. On the principle that a successful defend-ant is entitled to recover from the plaintiff the costs which he hasincurred for defending the action.. I think that the successfuldefendant here is not quite treated justly in only receiving the costsof his answer, but should recover from the plaintiff half the coststhat he has incurred in defending the action. If authority is requiredfor these propositions, it may be found In re Colquhoun Cain v.Adams ;:l Starling v. Cozens Government Agent, Uva, v. Banda ;5and Beaumont v. Senior and Bull,' which has been relied upon bycounsel for respondent.
I agree to the order proposed by my Lord.
Order as to costs varied.
(1836) 5 L. J. (K. B.) 252.4 (1835) 2 C, M. d, ft. 446.
5 (1910) 13 X. it, 3,
1 (1903) 1 K. B. 282.*(1854) D. M. do 0. 35.