Leigh v Michelin Tyre Plc

Leigh v Michelin Tyre Plc

A party is not automatically bound by its costs estimate for the purposes of costs assessment. The court may take the estimate into account as a factor, especially where there is reliance by the other party or where case management would have been affected, but an inadequate estimate alone is not a sufficient reason to cap recoverable costs. In the absence of reliance or prejudice, and where costs are otherwise reasonable and proportionate, exceeding an estimate does not justify a reduction.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Leigh; Appellants/defendants: Michelin Tyre PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Estimates, Assessment of Costs, Practice Directions, Case Management, Indemnity Principle
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Estimates Assessment of Costs Practice Directions Case Management Indemnity Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leigh

Claimant/respondent

Michelin Tyre PLC

Appellants/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party is bound by its costs estimate for the purposes of costs assessment
  2. 2 How courts should take into account costs estimates under CPR 43 PD para 6.6
  3. 3 Whether a substantial departure from a costs estimate without explanation should limit recoverable costs

Ratio Decidendi

A party is not automatically bound by its costs estimate for the purposes of costs assessment. The court may take the estimate into account as a factor, especially where there is reliance by the other party or where case management would have been affected, but an inadequate estimate alone is not a sufficient reason to cap recoverable costs. In the absence of reliance or prejudice, and where costs are otherwise reasonable and proportionate, exceeding an estimate does not justify a reduction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants to pay the respondents costs of the appeal in the agreed sum of £13,032.51
  • Stay of Execution ordered by Dyson LJ on 22 May 2003 to be removed