Herrick v Knowles (No 2)

The case of Herrick v Knowles (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Herrick, seeking an order for the defendant, Knowles, to pay costs incurred by a third party, the Motor Accident Authority (MAA). The plaintiff had previously been awarded a judgment against the defendant, but the defendant had not satisfied the judgment. The MAA had intervened in the proceedings, seeking to recover costs it had incurred in the litigation. The court was required to determine whether the MAA was entitled to be reimbursed for its costs under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the MAA being separately represented.

The court held that the MAA was entitled to recover its costs under section 98 of the Act. The court found that the MAA had been directly affected by the litigation, as it had incurred costs in defending a claim that was ultimately dismissed. The court also found that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the MAA being separately represented. The court held that the MAA's interests were not fully represented by either of the parties to the proceedings, and that it was necessary for the MAA to be separately represented in order to protect its interests.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the MAA's costs. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual order for costs to follow the event. The court also held that the defendant was not liable for the MAA's costs, as the defendant had not caused the MAA to incur those costs. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the interests of non-parties in litigation, and the need for separate representation where necessary.