ARGUMENT ABOUT TIME FOR SERVING COSTS BUDGET "MANIFEST NONSENSE": RATTAN -V- UBS CONSIDERED IN FULL

March 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

Highly technical points are now being taken as a matter of course. Some succeed. Some come to grief. This is what happened to the point in relation to service of the Precedent H costs budget in Rattan -v- UBS [2014] EWHC 665 (Comm). This is such a short judgment that I set it out in full below. No...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Civil Procedure Rules, costs, Court costs, CPR 3.9, Mitchell

2 Responses

litigationPSL · March 13, 2014 at 00:25:55 · →

This judgment seems to indicate that the parties can vary the time for filing a budget – that is surely nonsense given the terms of CPR 3.13 and 3,14 as well as CPR 3.8??!!
zenithpi · March 13, 2014 at 11:42:05 · →

Reblogged this on Zenith PI.