Key Facts
- •Lehman Brothers Holdings PLC (in Administration) cost dispute.
- •Dispute over costs related to Issue (1) – Directions and Strike Out Applications.
- •Main dispute between LBHI and DB regarding costs allocation for Issue (1).
- •LBHI rejected DB's proposed cost-sharing arrangement.
- •Application for permission to appeal by LBHI.
Legal Principles
Costs allocation in insolvency proceedings.
Insolvency Act 1986
Successful party typically receives costs.
CPR, r. 44.2(6)(a)
Set-off of costs between parties.
CPR, r. 44.12(1)(a); Izzo v Philip Ross & Co [2002] B.P.I.R. 310
Court's inherent jurisdiction to manage costs.
Izzo v Philip Ross & Co [2002] B.P.I.R. 310
Permission to appeal granted or denied at the discretion of the court.
Court of Appeal Rules
Outcomes
PLC Administrators' costs to be paid from PLC's administration.
Usual practice in such circumstances.
LBHI to pay GP1's costs (subject to assessment).
Agreed by the parties.
DB to pay LBHI's costs for the failed Strike Out Application (subject to assessment).
The Strike Out Application was treated as a separate, unsuccessful application despite being related to Issue (1); a fair percentage cost order was deemed too difficult to determine.
Set-off of costs between DB and LBHI allowed (if costs need assessment).
To avoid multiple assessments and to promote fairness.
Permission to appeal denied.
The judge deemed the appeal issue appropriate for the Court of Appeal to determine.