1

Rakusen v Jepsen is a high profile Rent Repayment Order (RRO) application case, in which the Applicant’s name typically comes before that of the respondent when the case is referred to. In this one, Rakusen is the name of the landlord (ie respondent party), yet their name seems invariably to be cited in front. Why is this?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Rakusen was the appellant at the Court of Appeal. Many, but not all, appellate courts adopt the norm of listing the appellant as the first party in the style of cause, even if they were the respondent or defendant in the underlying matter.

This style decision can vary between courts within the same country and can even differ between courts within the same appeal hierarchy. E.g. in Canada different provinces do it different ways, and not all of them match the Supreme Court's style.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    I guess the question then is, why didn't the parties switch back again when Jepsen appealed to the Supreme Court? That would be the practice in the US, but not in the UK, it seems.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Feb 13 at 18:12
  • The rationale may be that the non-appellate decision carries zero to none affect to anyone other than the parties (and other than res judicata, law of case and collateral estoppel). May be the appellate level is considered for purposes of case law the starting of the case. Once started the appellate avenue the case remains in that “original” name — just speculating here though.
    – kisspuska
    Feb 14 at 8:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .