COST BITES 33: BUDGETS: PROPORTIONALITY, COUNSEL'S FEES ("STRATOSPHERIC", OR "ASPIRATIONAL") THE COST OF EXPERTS AND THE COSTS OF TRIAL

COST BITES 33: BUDGETS: PROPORTIONALITY, COUNSEL’S FEES (“STRATOSPHERIC”, OR “ASPIRATIONAL”) THE COST OF EXPERTS AND THE COSTS OF TRIAL

There is a detailed exposition of the principles relating to costs budgeting in the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in Various Sam Borrowers v BOS (Shared Appreciation Mortgages) No. 1 Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2594 (Ch).  The judgment…

COST BITES 30: OTHER PEOPLE'S BUDGETS: NONE OF THESE BUDGETS IS UNREASONABLE OR DISPROPORTIONATE

COST BITES 30: OTHER PEOPLE’S BUDGETS: NONE OF THESE BUDGETS IS UNREASONABLE OR DISPROPORTIONATE

It is always interesting to look at the figures involved in relation to costs budgeting.  We can see an example in the decision of Mr Roger Ter Haar KC in  University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd &…

COST BITES 29: THE PRINCIPLES OF BUDGETING CONSIDERING AND APPLIED: 15% REDUCTION TO BUDGET

COST BITES 29: THE PRINCIPLES OF BUDGETING CONSIDERING AND APPLIED: 15% REDUCTION TO BUDGET

In  Associated Newspapers Ltd v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd (Cost Budgeting) [2022] EWHC 2767 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar KC considered principles relating to the budgeting process. He reduced a budget by 15% across the board. “In my judgment, the…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO FILE A BUDGET DISCUSSION REPORT: A CASE TO CONSIDER

THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO FILE A BUDGET DISCUSSION REPORT: A CASE TO CONSIDER

I am grateful to Jodie Davis from Irwin Mitchell for sending me a note of a judgment given in a case relating to non-service of the Budget discussion report.  The note is reproduced in full below.   There is an interesting…