Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva (No. 3)

The case of Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva (No. 3) involved an application to set aside and vary a costs order, which arose from a legal dispute between Samso Wall Printing, the applicant, and Sachdeva, the respondent. The initial suit involved multiple defendants, with Samso Wall Printing being successful against one defendant but not against the other. The matter before the court was whether the costs order should be set aside and varied, focusing on the applicant's failure to provide submissions regarding the costs orders as directed and the adequacy of the explanation for this non-compliance.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for its failure to comply with the directions regarding the costs orders and whether the court should set aside and vary the costs order to impose liability on the second defendant for the costs of the first defendant. Additionally, the court had to consider if the conduct of the second defendant warranted a Sanderson order, which would allow the costs of the first defendant to be imposed on the second defendant.

The court held that the applicant's explanation for not complying with the directions was inadequate, and there was no good reason for the delay. The court also found that the second defendant's conduct did not justify imposing liability for the costs of the first defendant. Consequently, the application to set aside and vary the costs order was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to directions and the consequences of failing to do so.

The final orders were that the application to set aside and vary the costs order was dismissed, and the applicant was to bear its own costs of the application. The second defendant was not required to contribute to the costs of the first defendant.