Category Costs budgeting

THIS COSTS BUDGETING THING – IT IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT: WELL THINK AGAIN

There are some important observations made by Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman Limited [2016] EWHC 2315 (Ch) in relation to both costs budgeting and security for costs. KEY POINTS There is no duty on a party applying for security for costs to prepare a detailed costs budget. However it is […]

COSTS BUDGETING IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY IN A HIGH VALUE CASE : BUT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL

In Signia Wealth Limited -v- Marlborough Trust Company Limited [2016] EWHC 2141 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh considered two issues relating to case management: whether costs budgeting should apply and whether a split trial was appropriate. KEY POINTS Costs budgeting A high value action stayed within the costs budgeting regime because the claim form limited the […]

FAILING TO FILE A COST BUDGET AND REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A HARSH LESSON

If a litigation solicitor is ever given the job of designing wallpaper here are the three key things that should form the recurring motif. The costs budget is due 21 days before the first case management conference. Where the claim is under £50,000 the costs budget has to be filed with the directions questionnaires. If […]

COSTS BUDGETING – THE KEY DATES: A QUICK REMINDER TO AVOID A SHARP (BUT NOT NECESSARILY SHORT) SHOCK

You would think that everyone involved in litigation would know that new rules as to cost budgeting came into force on the 6th April 2016. However, judging from some of the blank (and worried) looks I have seen recently when this has been mentioned, this may not be the case.  Since the cases where the […]

NEW RULES ON COSTS CAPPING

New rules (The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2016 were passed yesterday which amend CPR Part 3 in relation to costs capping. They are of relatively limited ambit, applying only to Judicial Review applications.  They replace protective costs orders in relation to judicial reviews. KEY POINTS There are now provisions for judicial review costs capping […]

COSTS BUDGETING & DAVID -v- GOLIATH: DOES IT GIVE THE “LITTLE GUY” A CHANCE?

Costs budgeting remains highly controversial.  One question that is open to debate is – is it useful?  Its utility may be most apparent in cases where the sizes and resources of the litigants are vastly disparate. (Many personal injury lawyers would argue that this is virtually every personal injury case where the defendant is insured, […]

PROPORTIONALITY II (THE EXTENDED ALBUM EDITION)

The earlier post on the decision in Dr Brian May -v- Wavell Group Plc [2016] EWHC B16 (Costs) outlined the decision in summary.  This is a case that justifies an extended examination. REPRISE Following acceptance of the defendant’s Part 36 offer of £25,000 the claimants produced a bill totalling £208,236.54. After a line by line assessment that was […]

OVERSPENDING ON YOUR COSTS BUDGET? BETTER TELL YOUR CLIENT

Way back in the mist of time (that is post-Mitchell, pre-Denton) I reported a decision of District Judge Lumb on sanctions and costs budgeting. That particular post was then  plagiarised without any reference to me (matters were resolved amicably). However  when I found myself lecturing alongside DJ Lumb at the PIBA conference earlier this year […]

“THAT PROPORTIONALITY JUDGMENT”: 10 KEY POINTS

The post yesterday on the decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) set out the case in some detail.  Here are the key points of that decision. KEY POINTS On an assessment of costs on the standard basis proportionality should prevail over reasonableness. The court should first make an assessment […]

PROPORTIONALITY CONQUERS ALL? PROFIT COSTS (AND COUNSEL’S FEES) HALVED

The decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) has already received widespread publicity. The principle of proportionality was used to halve profit costs and counsel’s fees and make a substantial reduction on the insurance premium. “…. I propose that in an assessment of costs on the standard basis, proportionality should […]