Hayward v Giffard And Grove: Cex 1838

The court refused to make an order for costs against a non-party though he was interested in its outcome.
Lord Abinger CB said: ‘If we were at liberty to consult equity and justice, we should probably make this rule absolute. But the authority of the courts at Westminster is derived from the Queen’s writ, directing them to take cognisance of the suits mentioned in the writs respectively, and thus bringing the parties before them. This being so, they have no power to order any particular individual to come before them at their pleasure. In the present case, if it could have been shewn that Spencer had committed any contempt of Court, or been guilty, in respect of this suit, of anything in the nature of barratry or maintenance, it would have been another matter; but we cannot make any order against an individual who is not party to any suit before us, nor has been guilty of any contempt, but merely because he has an interest in the event of the suit.’


Lord Abinger Cb


[1838] EngR 122, (1838) 4 M and W 194, (1838) 150 ER 1399




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTravelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.312128