Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd

Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd

A costs judge has no jurisdiction at the outset of a detailed assessment to order that the receiving party recover only a proportion of the assessed costs following acceptance of a Part 36 payment; the judge must assess costs in accordance with the rules, disallowing only those costs unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount, but cannot pre-emptively limit recovery to a percentage of the assessed costs.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Joseph Lahey; Defendant/appellant: Pirelli Tyres Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Detailed Assessment of Costs, Jurisdiction of Costs Judge, Proportionality in Costs, Part 36 Offers, Misconduct in Costs Proceedings
Civil Procedure Costs Detailed Assessment of Costs Jurisdiction of Costs Judge Proportionality in Costs Part 36 Offers Misconduct in Costs Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Lahey

Claimant/respondent

Pirelli Tyres Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs judge has jurisdiction at the outset of a detailed assessment to order that a paying party must pay only a proportion of the assessed costs following acceptance of a Part 36 payment

Ratio Decidendi

A costs judge has no jurisdiction at the outset of a detailed assessment to order that the receiving party recover only a proportion of the assessed costs following acceptance of a Part 36 payment; the judge must assess costs in accordance with the rules, disallowing only those costs unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount, but cannot pre-emptively limit recovery to a percentage of the assessed costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.