In an ICBC claim, and other civil claims as well, a Plaintiff sometimes sues more than one Defendant. If the Plaintiff succeeds against only one of the Defendants, then the Court has the discretion to order the unsuccessful Defendant to pay the costs of the successful Defendant. This type of order is what is commonly known as a Sanderson Order.
In Brooks v. Tod Estate, a collision ensued when a vehicle attempted to overtake another vehicle in the passing lane. A car coming in the opposite direction swerved to avoid the passing vehicle, and then struck another vehicle traveling in the same direction as the passing vehicle. The driver of the car that swerved passed away. The Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle involved in a collision with the car that swerved. Liability was established against the passing vehicle. The Plaintiff had sued the estate of the driver of the swerving car, as well as the driver of the passing vehicle. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff as against the driver of the passing vehicle. An issue as to whether the unsuccessful Defendant (driver of the passing vehicle) had to pay costs to the successful Defendant (the swerving vehicle). In granting a Sanderson Order to this effect, the Court commented that:
 Under Rule 14–18(1), an order may be granted that an unsuccessful defendant pay the costs of the successful defendant directly. This is known as a Sanderson order, after Sanderson v. Blyth Theatre Co.  2 K.B. 533 (CA). Alternatively, the court may order that the plaintiff pay the successful defendant’s costs, and claim that amount as a disbursement in the assessment of costs against the unsuccessful defendant. This is known as a Bullock order, after Bullock v. London General Omnibus Co.  1 K.B. 264 (CA).
 Determining whether or not a Sanderson/Bullock order is appropriate requires a two-stage analysis. At the first stage, the court must determine whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to sue the successful defendant together with the unsuccessful defendant. This is the threshold question: Davidson v. Tahtsa Timber Ltd., 2010 BCCA 528 (CanLII), 2010 BCCA 528 at para. 52. If the threshold question is answered affirmatively, the court moves to the second stage of the analysis to exercise its discretion to determine whether a Bullock/Sanderson order is just and fair in the circumstances. The court is to determine whether the circumstances of the case warrant having the unsuccessful defendant pay the costs of the successful defendant.
 For the reasons that follow I conclude that a Sanderson order is appropriate in this case.
 In my view, the threshold question is easily met. It was reasonable for the plaintiff to name both the Tod Estate and Ms. Goodrick as defendants in this litigation. The action arises as a result of the injuries the plaintiff sustained in the accident. The vehicle the plaintiff was travelling in collided with Mr. Tod’s vehicle. The plaintiff’s pleadings claim that Mr. Tod’s vehicle lost control while he was overtaking Ms. Goodrick’s vehicle. The plaintiff maintained that she sustained injuries as a result of either, or both of the defendants’ negligence. Therefore, the claims against the Tod Estate and Ms. Goodrick are inextricably linked to one another.
 Further, the plaintiff was aware that prior to commencing this lawsuit, Mr. Brook, her husband, settled his own claim for damages arising out of the accident. The funds Mr. Brook received were paid on behalf of the Tod Estate by Mr. Tod’s primary insurer. Additionally, on October 10, 2012, the Tod Estate made an offer to settle the action by accepting 51% responsibility for the accident. These factors, coupled with the circumstances of the accident make it reasonable for the plaintiff to have joined and maintained the action against the Tod Estate.
 Having met the threshold question, the next determination is whether Ms. Goodrick ought to pay the costs the Tod Estate is entitled to obtain from the plaintiff. Throughout the liability proceedings Ms. Goodrick asserted that Mr. Tod was the “culprit in the case”. Ms. Goodrick argued, throughout, that the accident occurred solely as a result of Mr. Tod’s negligence. Ms. Goodrick maintained that she never left her lane of travel, which was rejected at trial. Ms. Goodrick’s uncompromising position made settlement of the proceedings impossible and prolonged the liability trial. Therefore, it is fair and just to have Ms. Goodrick bear the costs of the Tod Estate directly.