COST BITES 182: ANOTHER CASE OF A CLAIMANT PAYING THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING BECAUSE OF AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH
In Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB) Master Thornett revisited the principles considered in Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) It was held that the claimant’s unrealistic figures in a costs budget should lead to the claimant paying…
COST BITES 180: EXCESSIVE BUDGET LEADS TO PARTY BEING ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING
In Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) Master Thornett awarded costs against a party who, the Master felt, had over-inflated their costs budget. The case stands as a warning that a party putting forward a budget which is…
COST BUDGETS, VARIATIONS AND “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS”: JUDGE REFUSES TO REVISE THE BUDGET AFTER TRIAL
In Rahman v Hassan & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application that the budget be revised after the trial. The judge held that the matters relied…
COST BITES 173: VARYING A COSTS BUDGET “AFTER THE EVENT”: IF THE APPLICATION WAS NOT “PROMPT” THE BUDGET WILL NOT BE VARIED
We are looking again at the decision in Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB), this time on the issue of costs budgeting. The judge considered the defendant’s budget in unusual circumstances. The claimant’s case had been struck…
COST (MEGA) BITES 168: AN EXHAUSTING READ (V): BUDGETS THAT ARE DESCRIBED AS “ABSURDLY HIGH”, “WHOLLY EXCESSIVE” AND WHICH “STRAINS ALL CREDULITY”
Unsurprisingly we are returning to the judgment in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). The judges gave some examples of parts of the claimants’ budgets in particular that had been “overbudgeted”. They were not shy IN setting out their…
COST (MEGA) BITES 167: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (IV): “BUT YOURS IS NEARLY AS BIG AS MINE” IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT: COSTS BUDGETS COULD NOT BE COMPARED
We are continuing to look at the judgment in relation to the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). In this post we are considering the argument that since claimants’ budget was very similar to the defendants’…
COST (MEGA) BITES 166: AN EXAUSTING CASE (iii): “THE CLAIMANTS’ APPROACH TO BUDGETING IS REDOLENT OF FINANCIAL INCONTINENCE”
The general observations made about the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB) is of importance. The court was particularly scathing of the claimants’ budget. It also rejected the claimants’ contention that the defendants’ budget had been artificially…
COST (MEGA) BITES 165: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (ii): PROPORTIONALITY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM THE CASE IS WORTH £6 BILLION: THE PARTIES ARE NOT HANDED A BLANK CHEQUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERABLE COSTS
We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Mr Justice Constable and Senior Costs Judge Saker in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB). This time by looking at the court’s consideration of issues of proportionality when…
COST (MEGA) BITES 164: AN EXHAUSTING CASE:COSTS BUDGETING WHEN THE BUDGETS TOTAL £650 MILLION (1): GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The judgment of Mr Justice Constable sitting with Senior Costs Judge Saker in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB) contains much that is of interest to litigators. The judges budgeted a case where the claimants sought over £342…
COST BITES 159: DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE GOLDEN RULE – THAT THE CLIENT SHOULD BE KEPT INFORMED
We are looking again at the judgment in St. James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB). The judge considered the question of whether the client had been informed that the budget had been exceeded and that the solicitors…
COST BITES 156: COSTS BUDGETING WAS APPROPRIATE IN THE CASE OF A SERIOUSLY INJURED CHILD: IT HELPS THE CLAIMANT AS MUCH AS THE DEFENDANT
I am grateful to PJ Kirby KC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Master Brown in the case of PXT -v- Atere-Roberts [2024] EWHC 1372 (KB), a copy of which is available here Judgment PXT final 6…
COSTS BUDGETING: ESSENTIAL GUIDANCE FROM COSTS JUDGE BROWN
Costs Judge Simon Brown has produced a Note to assist in the case management and costs budgeting process in Kings Bench Division involving high value personal injury claim. The purpose of the Note is to “provide a neutral approach to…
COST BITES 146: LITIGANT IN PERSON (USING DIRECT ACCESS COUNSEL) WAS TO FILE A COSTS BUDGET
In Cotham School v Bristol City Council & Ors (Ruling on Costs Budgeting) [2024] EWHC 824 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) stated that a litigant in person was to provide a costs budget. The litigant…
COST BITES 132: INTERIM PAYMENTS FOR COSTS AND COSTS OF A CONSEQUENTIAL HEARING
In Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 2923 (Ch) Mr Justice Mellor considered issues relating to an interim payment on costs and whether a consequentials hearing should be assessed…
Opportunities and Threats in Commercial Costs Litigation: Afternoon conference 29th February 2024 in Manchester
My colleagues in the costs team at Kings Chambers alongside three eminent guest speakers are presenting a half day conference on the 29th February 2024 in Manchester. Booking details are available here. THE CONERENCE At this timely conference, four…
COST BITES 123: COSTS OF BUDGETING REDUCED BY 25% TO REFLECT CLAIMANT’S UNREALISTIC BUDGET
In Reid v Wye Valley NHS Trust & Anor [2023] EWHC 2843 (KB) Master Brown reduced the recoverable costs of budgeting by 25% to reflect the unrealistic nature of the claimant’s budget. There are important issues here for those who…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN THE COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: BUDGETING AT TRIAL IS A FAIRLY HOPELESS TASK
There is much to learn from the decision of Mr Justice Ritchie in Tan v Idlbi & Anor [2023] EWHC 2840 (KB). The claimant was unsuccessful in an application for relief from sanctions following late service of the costs budget….
COST BITES 122: THE APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR COSTS WHEN BOTH SIDES “WIN” AND BOTH SIDES “LOSE”: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COSTS BUDGET
We are returning to an examination of costs orders made and their practical implications for the client. In Aymes International Ltd v Nutrition4u BV & Ors [2023] EWHC 2672 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered…
COST BITES 119: COSTS BUDGETING: DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO VARY ITS BUDGET TO INCLUDE COSTS ALREADY INCURRED OBTAINING SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE
There is a report of an interesting decision of Master McCloud in Yelland -v- Space Engineering Services Ltd [2023] EWHC 2823 (KB). The report is from Sean Linley of Carter Burnett and can be read here. There is a link to…
COST BITES 116: YOU CAN’T AVOID PAYING THE COSTS OF AN APPLICATION AND APPEAL JUST BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T IN THE COSTS BUDGET…
We have seen some “interesting” submissions in relation to costs on this blog. However one of the most novel is the point taken by the Third Party in South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Ltd & Anor…