Lord v McMahon (No. 5)

The case of Lord v McMahon (No. 5) involved the plaintiff, Lord, who brought an action against McMahon, the defendant, for nuisance and trespass. McMahon, in turn, filed a cross-claim against Lord for proprietary estoppel and for relief under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922. The matter was heard by the court, which had to determine several legal issues concerning the costs associated with the proceedings.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate order for costs, given that Lord was partially successful in their action, while McMahon did not succeed on any of his cross-claims. The central issue was whether the issues on which Lord was successful were severable from those on which it was unsuccessful, leading to the potential for separate costs orders on each issue. This required the court to carefully consider the nature of the claims and the extent of success achieved by each party.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the issues on which Lord was successful were indeed severable from those on which it was unsuccessful. Consequently, the court ordered separate costs orders for each issue. The reasoning was based on the principle that costs should reflect the extent of success or failure of the parties. The court held that it was appropriate to make separate costs orders to ensure that each party bore a fair proportion of the costs incurred, reflecting the partial success of Lord and the complete failure of McMahon.

The court's final orders provided for separate costs orders to be made in relation to the successful and unsuccessful issues. This approach ensured that the costs reflected the respective outcomes of the parties in the proceedings.