The Supreme Court Costs Office
No.5 of 2007
Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ
14 February 2007
Clarke MR, Arden, Dyson LJJ
The Court addressed the extent to which, if at all, the Costs Judge can reduce costs on detailed assessment by adopting a broad percentage approach.
In a personal injury claim, C quantified his loss at £150,000 but accepted a Part 36 payment of £4,000. On detailed assessment, D contended that he should receive 25% not 100% of his assessed costs and whilst CPR 44.3 did not permit the Costs Judge so to order, rules 44.4, 44.5 and/or 44.14 did.
The Court upheld the Circuit Judge. The effect of rule 36.13(1) and (4) and 44.12(1)(b) was that when the claimant accepted the Part 36 payment, a costs order entitling him to 100% of the assessed costs was deemed to have been made on the standard basis. The Court had no power to decide that C should only receive 25%.
That said, Costs Judges are permitted to make reductions of the level sought by D (or indeed any other level) by engaging CPR 44.4(1) in an appropriate case where costs have been unreasonably incurred, for example by improperly raising and pursuing a particular issue.