IS THE BUDGET DEFINITIVE ON ASSESSMENT? MORE CATS, MORE PIGEONS: THERE ARE NOW TWO TRAINS OF THOUGHT ON THE HOURLY RATE

August 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

Earlier this month I blogged on the decision in RNB v London Borough of Newham [2017] EWHC B15 (Costs). Deputy Master Campbell decided that the hourly rate could be challenged at the assessment stage even if the total of a particular stage was within the budget. It is clear that there is not judici...

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: Assessment of costs, costs, Costs budgeting

2 Responses

Anton Smith · August 21, 2017 at 19:57:40 · →

Once a budget has been set for any tranche of work, what business is it of the paying party or the court if, instead of say £20,000 divided into 100 hours at £200 per hour as anticipated, the actual work is instead done very inefficiently and takes 200 hours at £100 per hour, or is done super efficiently in 50 hours by someone charging £400 per hour for that ability and skill? Or by an army of trainees who spend 1,000 hours only some of which is charged to the client or sought to be recovered of at all, which is then reviewed and comes in on budget?

In my opinion the court has no place or remit to effectively micro-manage how the case is ultimately staffed, which is where RNB appears to lead.
Scott B · August 22, 2017 at 14:26:13 · →

You’re assuming the approved budget is reasonable, proportionate and accurately reflects the case. At the coal face, this is not always so, and rates can provide a “good reason” to depart in either direction. Saying that, as proportionality clearly requires hindsight to properly consider, making the whole concept of a proportionate budget a nonsense, I don’t see why DJ’s can’t budget for rates. Alternatively, remove the rates option from the budget and thus remove the issue.