header-logo header-logo

CIVIL LITIGATION

22 February 2007
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Lahey v Pirelli Tyres Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 91, [2007] All ER (D) 165 (Feb)

The effect of CPR 36.13(1) and (4) is that, upon acceptance of the Pt 36 payment, a costs order is deemed to have been made on the standard basis. That means that the claimant is entitled to 100% of the assessed costs ie the amount that the costs judge decides is payable at the conclusion of the detailed assessment.

The costs judge has no power to vary that order and so has no jurisdiction, at the outset of a detailed assessment of costs, to order that a paying party has to pay only a proportion of the costs that are ultimately assessed to be payable. However, in an appropriate case, the costs judge may disallow entire sections of a bill of costs on the footing that they were unreasonably incurred.

Issue: 7261 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll