WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 2: WILL COSTS BUDGETING REDUCE COSTS?

April 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

There has been considerable controversy on the issue of whether costs budgeting actually leads to a reduction in costs. In this anniversary month it is worthwhile looking back at the report. In particular the question of whether costs budgeting would be cost-effective. As it is the rules are insuff...

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: costs, Costs budgeting

2 Responses

Lee Coulthard · April 7, 2014 at 08:42:07 · →

And of course the Defendant in your example was put to the pointless expense of preparing a budget for costs it was never likely to recover. There is an argument that front-loading of the costs process should do away with detailed assessment and save costs. That ignores the fact that the losing party does not have to prepare a bill in the assessment process but does prepare a budget; and that where, as here, the budgets bear no resemblance to the position when settlement is achieved then an assessment will be needed anyway.
Richard Harrison · April 7, 2014 at 19:44:09 · →

All because some bright spark thought of the “construction” analogy, shook it like a dog with a bone, and did not give if the modicum of thought that you have provided above. Litigation is not a construction project; budgeting is a good idea in principle but is now required in far too much detail far too early with disportionate sanctions. Will anyone listen?