One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
- MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
Top Posts
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
- JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
- THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
- MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Hello
I have to confess that I was blissfully unaware of this provision until your post, so thank you for that.
What do you think the position would be in relation to the need to file a Budget, in a case where the defendant estate was of no value, but where there was an MIB involvement?
My scenario is that I act for a claimant in an RTA matter where D1 is the estate of the deceased and D2 is the MIB. The estate is of no value and as the deceased was uninsured, there is no insurance policy that he/his estate benefits from. The MIB is therefore D2 in the case and in reality it will only ever be the MIB who pays any costs in the case.
On one interpretation of PD 3F, we do not intend to apply for costs from the estate, but on another, we would do, so that the MIB can pick up the costs tab through their contingent interest.
To some extent I see that it is a timing issue as a Budget will be required at some pint and therefore why not do it at the outset, rather than at the later stage and run the risk of the defendants saying that we have failed to file a budget and being in the nightmare that is relief from sanctions.
Adrian